SHINY VERMA BAKSHI  Vs DR. GURNEET SINGH BAKSHI & ORS.

CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 1 of 10
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12.01. 2021
Pronounced on: 27.01.2021

+ CRL.M.C.2085/2020

SHINY VERMA BAKSHI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Garg, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Meena Jha, Mr. Parv Garg, Mr.
Pawas Kulshrestha and Ms. Aarushi
Singh, Advs.
versus

DR. GURNEET SINGH BAKSHI & ORS. ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr. Kamal Saxena, Adv. for R -1
Mr.Vaibhav Sinha, Adv. for R -2 to 4

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside
order dated 24.09.2020 passed by learned MM (South -West) -4, in M.C.
bearing No.140/2020 and seeki ng enhancement of maintenance granted to
the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner/ wife got
married to respondent No. 1/husband on 26.12.2018 in a five -star hotel,
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 2 of 10
organized by the family of petitioner due to persistent demands by
respondents because it was within knowledge of the respondents that
petitioner is a divorced lady, but they did n ot have any objection to it.
Petitioner is a housewife with no independent income whereas respondent
No.1 is a Doctor at Sir Ganga R am Hospital with an admitted salary of
Rs.92,000/ -. Respondent No. 1 also earns additional income through
consultancy and interest from various FDRs which ha s not been disclosed
by him. The mother of petitioner is also a housewife whereas father of
petition er was 100% paralyzed and disabled for last about 20 years and
during pendency of the present lis, father of petitioner succumbed to
COVID -19 and passed away . The brother of petitioner is married and living
separately in Australia. . Respondent No. 3 (father -in-law) is a retired
Engineer with sufficient sources of income and respondent No.4 ( mother -in-
law) is a S enior Professor in Delhi University with a handsome salary.
Family of respondent No. 1 leads a luxurious lifestyle and admittedly, he is
not required to maintain his parents or any other relative.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that a fter the marriage, respondents started ill -treating the
petitioner , complaining of inadequate dowry brought by her, especially
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 3 of 10
since respondent No.1 is a doctor and thus , could have easily fetched more
dowry. So much so, respondent No.1 physically assaulted the petitioner and
also sent abusive messages to the mother of petitioner while demanding
Rs.70 lacs or Audi Q7 car out of th e compensation received by the father of
petitioner in his Motor Accident Claim, failing which, she would be thrown
out of her matrimonial home. Accordingly, on said account, p etitioner filed
her complaint before National Commission for Women (NCW) on
03.06.2020 against the physical and mental abuse by respondents . Since the
mental and physical torture of petitioner by respondents continued, the
petitioner was constrained to file a complaint under Section 12 r/w Section s
17/18/19/20/22 of Protection of Wome n from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
against the respondents herein. On 24.09.2020, the learned Mahila Court
was pleased to pass the impugned order wherei n an interim maintenance of
Rs.8,000/ – per month was awarded in favour of petitioner herein. Learned
Court also restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from
her matrimonial home.
4. It is further submitted that without following due process of law and
owing to their malafide intentions, respondents sought eviction of petitioner
from her ma trimonial home under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 4 of 10
Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. Despite the order dated 24.09.2020
staring at their face, wherein the respondents had been s pecifically
restrained by the learned Court from dispossessing th e petitioner from her
matrimonial home, Ld. District Magistrate, Delhi passed an illegal order of
eviction of petitioner from her matrimonial home under the said rules.
Therefore, since 28.09.2020, petitioner has been residing with her mother at
her parent al house.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh v s. Neha & Anr. : 2020 SCC OnL ine SC 903
[para 56(III)(i) ] has laid down factors to be considered by the Court while
assessing the quantum of maintenan ce to be awarded to the wife. In the
present case , neither the petitioner has any source of income nor her family
whereas respondents are working and enjoying handsome salaries.
Petitioner is getting a meagre maintenance of Rs. 8000/ – per month which is
not sufficient to sustain herself.
6. It is further submitted that t his Court in case of Babita Bisht v s.
Dharmender Singh Bisht : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8775 in para 12 laid
down that the formula of apportionment warrants that in case of no
dependants, husband sh all retain two parts of his income whereas one part
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 5 of 10
shall be given to the wife. It is the respondent’s case that respondent Nos.3
& 4 have disowned their son i.e. respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has
also never claimed that he has any dependants and thus , petitioner is entitled
to at least 1/3rd of his admitted salary of Rs. 92,000/ – per month.
7. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that in the case of Annurita
Vohra v s. Sandeep Vohra : 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192 , this Court observed
that since Article s 14 & 16 of the Constitution do not permit discrimination
between men and women, therefore, wife is also entitled to live according to
the status of her husband and apportionment formula must be applied to
calculate her maintenance. In addition, in the case of Meenu C hopra v s.
Deepak Chopra : 2001 SCC OnLine Del 563, this Court was of the view
that after the marriage, the wife adopts her matrimonial home and gets
attuned to the lifestyle of her husband. Therefore, Courts must be sensitive
towards the deserted wife and f ollow the principles of equity, evenness,
fairness and justice while assessing her maintenance.
8. It is further submitted that i n the present case, respondent No.1 had
deserted the petitioner on 26.05.2020, without any maintenance and to the
mercy of her pa rents -in-law. Merely because wife is capable of earning does
not mean that her maintenance should be reduced. In the case of Shailja &
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 6 of 10
Anr. vs. Khobbanna : (2018) 12 SCC 199 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that capability of earning and actually earning are distinct. Theref ore,
merely because wife is capable of earning does not become a ground to
reduce her maintenance. Moreover, financial position of family of wife is
immaterial while a ssessing quantum of maintenance as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain : (2017) 15 SCC 801 .
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that
the respondent No.1 is getting a gross salary of Rs. 92,000/ – p.m. He is
making following mandatory expenses per month on him as he is liv ing
alone in a rented accommodation :-
(i) Monthly house rent of Rs. 16,000/ – (after marriage
the respondent No.1 and petitioner lived in a
rented house )
(ii) Income Tax Rs.5,500/ –
(iii) Groceries and personal care Rs. 15,000/ –
(iv) Electricity Rs. 1,000/ –
(v) Gas Rs. 1,000/-
(vi) Telephone Rs. 1,000/ – (has to manage landline due
to network issues and c alls from hospital)
(vii) TV/ Internet Rs.1,000/ –
(viii) Car cleaning, garbage and security Rs.700/-
(ix) Fuel Rs. 2500/ –
(x) Car repair and maintenance Rs. 1,500/ – (as car is 7
years old and is of P arents)
(xi) Taxi Rs.1000/ –
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 7 of 10
(xii) Metro Rs. 500/-
(xiii) Domestic help Rs.1,200/-
(xiv) Medical membership fe e Rs.1,250/ –
(xv) Policies premium Rs.20,833/ – (the policies are of
more than 5 -6 years old from the date of marriage
and will continue for 8 -9 years)
(xvi) Medical journal Rs.1, 000/-
(xvii) Religious contribution Rs.500/ –
(xviii) Maintenance paid to petitioner Rs.8,000/ –
(xix) Miscellaneous, uncertain and self about
Rs.3,000/ –
(xx) Legal charges about Rs. 7,000/ – (as about 7
litigations have been initiated in this marriage in
which 6 litigations are in itiated by the petitioner
and in 5 cases initiated by the petitioner , the
respondent No.1 is a party , so more than two
dates are falling every month)
Total Expenditure Per Month: – Rs. 89,483/ –

10. It is further submitted that neither respondent No.1 has FD nor
property or had inherited any property by any law of succession. Thus, the
respondent No.1 is not in a position to pay even Rs.8,000/ – as directed by
the Court. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. I have h eard learned counsel for t he parties at length and perused the
material available on record.
12. Petitioner is undisputedly highly qualified and her qualifications are
as under :-
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 8 of 10
(i) BBA from ITM College Gurgaon
(ii) MBA from IILM College Lodhi Road, New Delhi
(iii) Core Franchisee Ce rtificate, S ydney, Australia

13. Working proof of petitioner as stated by respondents are as under: –
(i) worked in Thomas Pink in India ( not disputed )
(ii) worked at her brother’s Franchise Muffin Break
regularly in Perth, Australia till 2018 (Pics of
workin g and Chat already o n record)
(iii) Presently working as a Free Lancer Barista, also
used to
(iv) work as Barista when petitioner and respondent
No.1 were at Mohali

14. The petitioner has a ssets , however, disputed , which are as under:
(i) FD of Rs. 15 Lacs as mentioned in FIR dt.
21/12/2015 of previous marriage on page 4 of
FIR in last four lines (FIR on record)
(ii) Receiving of Rs. 9,50,000/ – (9.5 Lacs) by demand
draft mentioned in Order dated 01/11/2018 in Crl.
MC No. 5580/2018, by Justice A. K. Pathak,
Delhi High Court (Order on Record and Se cond
Marr iage took Place on 26/12/2018). No account
statement was ever filed wh ere this amount was
deposited.
(iii) Concealed South Indian Bank, ( document already
on record filed by respondent No.1). Later stated
just before filing maintenance petition that it was
closed, without assigning any reason and avoided
to file any document of the same despite demand.

15. It was claimed that petitioner’s deceased father was handic apped,
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 9 of 10
however, never discl osed that they had received Rs. 32,93,224/ – (thirty two
lacs ninty three thousand two hundred twenty four ) + 7.5% p.a. interest as
compensation from the date of accident awarded by this Court, beside this
he has also received lumpsum amount from its employer along with regular
benefits, i.e. D A.
16. In addition, i nherited properties of petitioner as stated by respondents
are as under :-
(i) A-37, Ground Floor, Chander Nagar, Ne w
Delhi a 250 Sq Yds Property
(ii) Plot bearing No.CB – 391, Naraina Ring Road,
Subzi Mandi, New Delhi
(iii) Petitioner also has Honda CAR bearing No. DL
4C AV 2508 at her disposal.

17. Moreover, p etitioner has claimed that her parents spent Rs. 1 crore on
her previous marriage as mentioned on page 2 of FIR and also spent good
amount on her second marriage. It is not properly explained that how come
her parents spen t Rs 1 crore and more when none of them are working as
said by the petitioner to the Co urt (Previous FIR on record ).
18. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the
petitioner and her family are involved in about more than 14 – 15 cases
under various heads as per the record of the internet . Whereas , the
respondent No.1 and his family have initiated only one case in their life time
2021:DHC:295 CRL.M.C.2085/2020 Page 10 of 10
and that too for their security. After marriage , it has come to the knowledge
of the respondent No. 1 that Incom e Tax Department had also raided the
house of the petitioner for malicious activities in the year 2016 -17.
19. In view of above and the fact that petitioner has failed to establish
that respondent No.2 is having more income then admitted or assets in his
name . On the contrary , the petitioner is more wealthier than respondent
No.1 and maintaining better standard of life. Thus, the judgments relied
upon by the petitioner are of no help in the facts and circumstances of this
case.
20. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate .
21. The petition is , accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
22. The Judgment be uploaded on the int ernet forthwith.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT )
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2021
rk

2021:DHC:295