Puneet Khaneja v. Neha Prabhakar
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 27/2023, CRL.M.A. 93/2023 PUNEET KHANEJA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Baldev Raj, Advocate.
versus NEHA PRABHAKAR ..... Respondent Through:
Mr. Shashi Shankar, Ms. Swati and Ms. Sugandha Chhibber, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R
% 28.03.2024 1.
By way of present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned ASJ in CA No. 288/22 whereby order dated 02.05.2022 passed by learned M.M. has been upheld. 2.
The present petition is premised on the ground that both the Courts below have awarded the interim maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- to the respondent as well as the to the minor child aged about 4 years. 3.
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner states that present petition is restricted only to the interim maintenance granted to the respondent No.2 and not to the minor child. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has referred to the income affidavit, filed by the respondent, wherein she has disclosed her income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. He contends that the same information is incorrect as the respondent is employed with TCS and her income for the month of August, 2021 as per her salary slip is Rs.55,737/-. He has further referred to the ITR filed by the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
respondent as well as accounts statement maintained by her with ICICI Bank which show various entries in excess of Rs.15,000/- per month. He thus, submits that respondent being employed, is not entitled to any interim maintenance.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned orders. It is contended that petitioner, in his income affidavit, has claimed his income to be Rs.18,000/- per month whereas his account statement maintained by him in Indian Bank would show entries far exceeding his claimed income. It is also contended that though the petitioner has claimed that his father is running a separate business in the name of M/s Khaneja and Company, petitioner is also involved in the said business and in this regard, reference is invited to one invoice dated 02.08.2019 wherein petitioner has signed for and on behalf of M/s Khaneja and Company. In her reply, respondent has reproduced entries in the bank account maintained by the petitioner with Indian Bank, which are as follows:- Date Deposit Bank & Account Number Sl.
No.
1.
18.12.2018 90,000/- Indian Bank A/c No. 50206930134 2.
25.02.2019 1,00,000/- Indian Bank 3.
06.03.2019 1,90,000/- Indian Bank 4.
12.03.2019 36,000/- Indian Bank 5.
30.05.2019 1,23,876/- Indian Bank 6.
05.07.2019 3,60,000/- Indian Bank 7.
05.07.2019 60,000/- Indian Bank 8.
23.07.2019 1,00,000/- Indian Bank The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
9.
13.08.2019 2,50,000/- Indian Bank 10.
22.08.2019 30,000/- Indian Bank 11.
10.10.2019 1,00,000/- Indian Bank 12.
03.12.2019 5,00,000/- Indian Bank 13.
07.12.2019 40,000/- Indian Bank 14.
18.01.2020 90,000/- Indian Bank 15.
22.01.2020 45,000/- Indian Bank 16.
05.03.2020 2,00,000/- Indian Bank 17.
12.03.02020 4,60,000/- Indian Bank 18.
25.03.2020 6,50,000/- Indian Bank 19.
25.03.2020 3,50,000/- Indian Bank 20.
20.05.2020 33,000/- Indian Bank 21.
30.05.2020 30,000/- Indian Bank 22.
05.06.2020 50,000/- Indian Bank 23.
12.06.2020 2,65,000/- Indian Bank 24.
18.06.2020 1,00,000/- Indian Bank 25.
27.07.2020 1,00,000/- Indian Bank 26.
03.09.2020 2,00,000/- Indian Bank 27.
09.09.2020 2,00,000/- Indian Bank 28.
22.09.2020 2,15,000/- Indian Bank 29.
09.10.2020 1,10,000/- Indian Bank 30.
19.12.2020 2,00,000,/- Indian Bank 31.
02.01.2021 1,00,000/- Indian Bank 32.
03.02.2021 1,50,000/- Indian Bank 33.
03.02.2021 50,000/- Indian Bank 34.
10.02.2021 1,10,000/- Indian Bank 35.
07.05.2021 1,79,000/- Indian Bank 5.
To the similar extent are the entries in the account maintained by M/s Khaneja and Company. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is employed with TCS from May, 2021 onwards and her employment is only on project basis and there is no steady income except Rs.15,000/- per month. It is informed that proceedings before the Trial Court are at the stage of prosecution evidence. 6.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
7.
Petitioner has not denied the account statement maintained by him with Indian Bank, reproduced hereinabove by the respondent, however, petitioner submits that the same were not income generated but loans taken by him from his father to run day-to-day business. Though, the petitioner has contended that the account maintained by M/s Khaneja and Company belongs to his father and he has no concern with the same, however in his income affidavit, he has claimed that his father is dependent upon him. Considering that the impugned orders relate to only grant of interim maintenance, on a consideration of above noted facts, no ground is made out to interfere with same. The impugned orders are upheld however, it is clarified that in case at the time of disposal of the maintenance petition, the Family Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to lesser or higher maintenance, the Family Court would be at liberty to grant adjustment of the arrears either way. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
8.
Needless to state that the observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of present petition and the same shall not have any bearing on the outcome of trial.
9.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms alongwith miscellaneous application.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 28, 2024 ga The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.