SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, February 15, 2024

Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2015 SCC OnLine Del 6377 : (2012) 194 DLT 757

In the High Court of Delhi

(BEFORE G.S. SISTANI, J.)

Arun Kumar .…. Petitioner

Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate
Versus
Meenu Kumar .…. Respondent
Mr. Alok Aggarwal, Advocate
CM (M) 1241/2009
Decided on June 1, 2012
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SISTANI, J.:— Present petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated
25.07.2009, whereby the District Judge has granted monthly
maintenance to the respondent no. 1, wife @ Rs. 5,500/- per month
and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. As per the petition
at the time of marriage the petitioner was a widower and respondent
no. 1 was a divorcee.
2. Mr. Chadha, counsel for the petitioner submits the marriage
between the parties was solemnized in a simple manner and no articles
of dowry were given or taken. After marriage parties resided at
Faridabad in a house which belongs to M/s. Bhagwan Dass Time
Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the house was given to the petitioner by the
company, being the director of the company. At the instance of
respondent no. 1, parties shifted to Sainik Farms in the year 2000.
Parties did not have the cordial relations since June, 2002. Respondent
no. 1 wanted the house at Sainik Farms to be transferred in her name
and since the petitioner did not exceed to her request, she threatened
him that she would create such a situation that petitioner would be
forced to transfer the house in her name. The relationship between the
parties deteriorated to the extent that respondent no. 1 filed a suit for
permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, with the prayer that
she should not be dispossessed from the house at Sainik Farms. The
respondent no. 1 on 20.11.2002 in the absence of the petitioner
removed all the articles of the household such as furniture, refrigerator,
T.V., Paintings, Linen and all her wearing apparels and jewellery etc.
and she also took away the Tata Indica Car, belonged to the company.
Petitioner informed the police control room, who visited the site and
verified the factum of removal of goods from the maid servant, who was
working with the petitioner. Since the local police did not cooperate in
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the investigation of the complaint filed by the petitioner, the petitioner

filed a criminal complaint under Sections 380/403/411/34 IPC. After
preliminary evidence, the matter was referred to the SHO Mehrauli for
investigation. Investigations revealed that household goods were in fact
removed from the Sainik Farms house with the help of respondent no. 2
by respondent no. 1. The goods were recovered from a flat at Gurgaon,
which was in control of respondent no. 2; and the car was also
recovered from a friend of respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that
with a view to gain access to the house of the petitioner, respondent
no. 1 jumped the 9 ft. boundary wall on 21.11.2002 and in the process
she received injuries. The respondent no. 1 also filed a complaint under
Sections 498-A/406/325 IPC resulting in registration of an FIR whereby
the aged father and son of the petitioner were also roped in.
3. Mr. Chadha, counsel for the petitioner submits that in a criminal
complaint under Sections 380/403/411/34 IPC filed by the petitioner,
the respondent no. 2 moved an application for becoming approver and
he admitted having physical relation with respondent no. 1 and having
lived together at Shimla and Ludhiana. The petitioner thereafter filed a
petition for grant of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty. It is
submitted that the aforesaid facts disentitled respondent no. 1 for grant
of maintenance.
4. The main thrust of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that
respondent No. 1 did not approach the trial court with clean hands and
has suppressed and withheld the material facts. It is contended that on
this ground alone the application for maintenance is liable to be
dismissed. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate that the respondent no. 1 was already employed and has
sufficient earnings to maintain herself; and respondent no. 1 has failed
to disclose her income from AVIVA Insurance Company and thus the
trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting interim
maintenance.
5. Counsel for the petitioner next contends that the learned trial
court has failed to take into consideration that respondent no. 1 had
initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed
in default. It is also submitted that the purpose of allowing the petition
to be dismissed, was that respondent no. 1 was fully aware that her
claim for maintenance was likely to be declined because of her living in
adultery with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 in order to avoid the
legal consequences, has not pressed the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and has filed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for claiming the same relief. It is also the case of the
petitioner that the conduct of the respondent no. 1 was such that she
has disentitled herself for grant of maintenance.
6. Elaborating his arguments further with regard to concealment of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

material facts, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that

respondent no. 1 did not disclose before the trial court that she was
employed and had sufficient income to sustain herself. In her affidavit,
which was filed on 03.04.2008 pursuant to the order passed by this
Court, she did not disclose her income from AVIVA Insurance and
details regarding the period she worked there. She also did not disclose
that she purchased a brand new Santro Car and had made the down
payment of Rs. 78,000/- and the balance was financed by the ICICI
bank for which she was paying monthly instalments of Rs. 6,635/- to
the bank. The amount so paid were out of her own funds and resources,
which would disentitle her for maintenance on account of suppression
of material facts. The respondent has also not disclosed that she
travelled abroad at the instance of AVIVA Insurance company which
would show that she was earning sufficient amounts from the
employment. Besides that she was running a boutique and having
business with respondent no. 2.
7. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 1
has enough earning to sustain herself. It is also submitted that the trial
court has failed to appreciate that respondent no. 1 owns a flat at
Punjabi Bagh in her name and during the pendency of the petition she
shifted to a house at Sukhdev Vihar which was purchased by her and
prior to that she was living in a rented house at A-56 Sukhdev Vihar,
New Delhj; and she has also withdrawn heavy amount from her PPF
account.
8. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the stand
taken by the respondent that the car purchased out of the funds of the
parents is factually incorrect, as the car was purchased in September,
2005 whereas father of respondent no. 1 had died on 16.09.2005 and
the mother died in January, 2006. Counsel for the petitioner also
submits that the statement of account filed by the respondent shows
that she was making payments of her EMIs regularly.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagan Nath, reported at 1994 SC 853; Smt.
Mamta Jaiswal v. Sh. Rajesh Jaiswal, reported at 2001 (2) All India
Hindu Law Reporter 228; and Dudhiben Merakhbhai v. Nathabhai
Hazbhai, reported at 1998 (1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 111, in
support of his submission that one must come to Court with clean
hands and any case which is based on falsehood is liable to be
summarily thrown out.
10. Present petition is opposed by counsel for the respondent, wife
on the ground that the petition is gross abuse of the process of law. It
is submitted that the grounds raised in the present petition are
imaginary and with a view to deprive the respondent no. 1 of her
legitimate right to maintenance and the petitioner is attempting to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ensure that respondent no. 1 is left with no money even to defend her
cases. The respondent no. 1 has denied that she is living in adultery
with respondent no. 2. The affidavit filed by defendant no. 2 cannot be
relied upon, which was filed by him in fear of being implicated in false
criminal litigation and in connivance of the petitioner. It is submitted
that respondent no. 1 was not interested to break the matrimonial
home as it was her second marriage and she had already suffered due
to an earlier broken marriage, but the rigid behavior and the cruelty
inflicted by the petitioner, forced the respondent no. 1 to leave the
matrimonial home. The petitioner on account of his influence and
money power has instituted fabricated cases against her. It is
submitted that admittedly the petitioner is a businessman and is a
director of a company. It is also submitted that admittedly the parties
resided in a Bunglow at Faridabad and then in a palatial house at Sanik
Farms, hence the respondent no. 1 is entitled to a similar life-style as
was being enjoyed by her at the matrimonial home.
11. Mr. Aggarwal further contends that having regard to the
standard of living enjoyed by respondent no. 1, learned trial court has
awarded a megre sum of Rs. 5,500/- to the respondent no. 1 and thus
the present petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. Counsel
for respondent no. 1 has also denied that marriage was simple and
usual ceremonies were not performed. It is contended that although
the marriage was solemnized in a Gurudwara, but the parents of the
respondent gave various items including household articles, jewellery,
heavy sarees, silver articles and various other gifts to the petitioner and
respondent no. 1
12. It is submitted that respondent no. 1 sustained injuries on
account of physical torture by the petitioner and not because of
jumping 9 ft. wall of the residence. On account of threat of
dispossession, the respondent no. 1 was forced to file a civil suit which
she could not pursue, as she was financially weak and was dependent
on friends and relations for her survival. It is submitted that on account
of lack of financial support she had to frequently change her lawyers as
she was unable to pay their fees. Respondent no. 1 has refuted the
allegations that she was a permanent employee of M/s. AVIVA
Insurance company. It is submitted that in order to support herself she
received commission from the company on performance basis and it
was not a regular monthly income; and that the purchase of Santro Car
has been highly magnified. It is submitted that the down payment for
the car was paid from the money received from her parents and some
monthly instalments were paid by her but she was not even able to
make the balance monthly instalments due to paucity of funds. It is
contended that her foreign trips have also been highlighted, whereas
the foreign trips made by her, were financed by AVIVA Insurance
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Company. It is submitted that petitioner has concealed his true income,

he has various properties, details of which is given below:
“(i). H. No. 823, Sec-21-A, Faridabad ad measuring around one
thousand square yards.
(ii) H. No. 294, Sector-21-B, Faridabad, Haryana measuring around
1000 square yards.
(iii) A Shop in Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.
(iv) Two rooms flat in Ganga Apartment, Haridwar.
(v) E-236, Nev Valley, Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
(vi) Office at 611-A, Devika Towers, New Delhi.
(vii) Property No. 47-B, New Friends Colony.
(viii) Shop No. 294-A, Chandani Chowk, Fatehpuri, Delhi.
(ix) House NO. 341, ector-21-A, Faridabad, Haryana.”
13. It is contended that petitioner is a man of means and he earns
lacs of rupees by money lending business and receives rent besides
income from investments in shares. Respondent no. 1 on the other
hand has no regular source of income and she is entitled to enjoy the
same status as that of the petitioner.
14. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that Sukhdev Vihar
flat was purchased after selling the property of her father at Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent
has filed an affidavit on 3.4.2008 wherein she has given details with
regard to purchase of SANTRO car. Counsel further submits that the
respondent has not concealed any material fact from this Hon'ble Court
as in the affidavit she has clearly stated that Rs. 78,000/- was paid by
her as down payment for the car, the car was financed by ICICI Bank
and monthly installments were fixed at Rs. 6,635/-, per month, for five
years. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has also annexed a
photocopy of her bank pass book and a certificate which was issued by
AVIVA insurance Company to show her status with the company.
Counsel next submits that according to the certificate issued by AVIVA
Insurance Company, the respondent was not on the payroll of the
AVIVA Insurance Company, she was not entitled to any fixed
remuneration and she received the commission from the company in
respect of insurances secured by her efforts based on her performance.
16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the
petitioner has highlighted alleged concealment of the respondent only
with a view to hide his own income. It is further submitted that in fact
the respondent is entitled to a much higher maintenance from the
petitioner, who has concealed his true income. It is next submitted that
admittedly, the petitioner is a Managing Director of a company but the
income tax return filed by him in this Court does not reveal the correct
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and true picture where it is shown that his net income is Rs. 1,89,400/-
. It is also submitted that the petitioner had made a statement before
the Court that he is a founder member of a club in Friends Colony, New
Delhi; he is residing at Friends Colony with his parents, which house
belongs to his father; and he has also admitted that he owns a plot of
land measuring 952 sq. ft. in Green Fields at Faridabad.
17. Mr. Aggarwal further contends that the trial court has wrongly
assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 15,000/-, per month, in
the year 2005 and Rs. 21,000/- in the year 2006. It is further
contended that the power of High Court under Article 226/227 is to be
exercised not as a Court of appeal and the Court should be slow in
interfering with the order of the trial court unless there is grave
miscarriage of justice.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my
thoughtful consideration to the matter. The first submission of Mr.
Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that on account of
concealment of facts the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage
Act filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed by the trial court.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent had
concealed the fact that she was working with AVIVA Insurance
Company, she had sufficient income, she was able to purchase a
SANTRO car by making a down payment of Rs. 78,000/-, she was
paying installment of Rs. 6,635/-, she had made foreign trips abroad,
and the explanation which was rendered for purchase of a flat at
Sukhdev Vihar for Rs. 30.00 lakhs after selling her father's property at
Punjabi Bagh was not a proper explanation as the property at Punjabi
Bagh was sold at a much lesser price. The second argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondent was living in
adultery she was not entitled to any relief. Another argument raised by
Mr. Chadha is that the conduct of the respondent is such that she is not
entitled to maintenance as she had removed all her belongings and
petitioners belongings including furniture, etc., from the house at Sanik
Farms and after a Police report was made the articles were recovered
from the flat at Gurgaon. The car removed by her was also recovered by
the Police.
19. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, has refuted all
the allegations made against the respondent. It is further submitted
that the respondent was unceremoniously thrown out of her
matrimonial home, she is entitled to enjoy the same status as she was
enjoying in her matrimonial home where she was residing in a
palacious bungalow first at Faridabad and thereafter at Sainik Farms,
there were servants in the house, her husband is a Managing Director of
a company and her husband was a member of a prestigious club. Mr.
Agarwal further submits that the respondent has prima facie given the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source of purchase of car and rendered explanation with regard to

purchase of a flat in Sukhdev Vihar, which was purchased after selling
the property of her father. The respondent has also given cogent
explanation with regard to the purchase of flat by filing an affidavit in
the Court whereas the petitioner has concealed his true income.
Counsel also submits that the income tax return filed by the petitioner
is unreliable and having regard to the status of respondent no. 1 the
trial has done complete injustice in the matter and awarded a paltry
sum of Rs. 5500/- to the respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that
if at all there is miscarriage of justice, it is against the respondent and
not the petitioner.
20. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
has expressed pain and anguish in the manner the respondent had
treated the petitioner. Complaints were made against the petitioner and
his aged father whereas according to the petitioner respondent was
responsible for breakdown of the marriage. Similar allegations were
made by the respondent against the petitioner.
21. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would
be useful to reproduce the observations made by a Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge,
Dehradun, reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7. Para 12 of the judgment reads
as under:
“12. It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a
similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is
the duty of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one
spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse
lives a life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce
proceedings the parties should be able to maintain themselves and
should be sufficiently entitled to be represented in judicial
proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do so on account of
insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the
same.”
22. In the case of Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde, reported at
140 (2007) DLT 16, the Apex Court has held as under:
“19. As noted herein above, unfortunately, nobody pays proper taxes
to the Government. Self employed persons seldom disclose their true
income. Prudence and wordly wisdom gained by a judge before
whom citizens of all stratas of society litigate it can always be used
by a judge to broadly ascertain as to what is going on in the society.
By no means, said knowledge can be used where law requires a fact
to be conclusively proved. But where the law requires a Judge to
form an opinion based on a host of primary data, a Judge can
formulate an opinion pertaining to the likely income from the capital
assets of the husband.”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. While there is no quarrel to the proposition that one must

approach the Court with clean hands and must not suppress and
withhold material facts as far as judgment relied upon in the case of
Dudhiben Merakhbhai (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable
to the facts of the present case as it pertains to proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and even otherwise in tis case it is yet to be
proved that respondent was living in adultery. The case of Smt. Mamta
Jaiswal (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as
it cannot be said that the respondent is sitting idle with a view to
extract money from the petitioner but the moot question is as to
whether the respondent has regular source of income and whether the
income is such which permits her to stay and live in dignity and with
the same status which she was enjoying in her matrimonial home.
24. While in the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act
the respondent did not disclose that she was working on commission
basis with AVIVA Insurance Company. Concealment by the parties in
filing an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and the
reply thereto is highly prevalent and such a practice should be strongly
deprecated. In this case by an order dated 24.9.2007 passed by
Additional District Judge both parties were directed to file affidavits
with regard to their income and in the affidavit filed by the respondent
on 3.4.2008, the respondent clarified and placed on record a certificate
from AVIVA Insurance Company to show that she was serving not as a
regular employee with AVIVA Insurance Company and she was on the
payroll, nor she was entitled to fix remuneration and she received
commission from the company in respect of insurance secured by her
efforts. She also clarified in her affidavit the source for purchasing the
SANTRO car and even annexed her bank statement as also saving bank
account pass book. She has also rendered an explanation with regard to
the purchase of a flat and the source of income after selling the
property, which belonged to her father. An Indian woman has been
given an equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. She has a right to live in dignity and according to the status of
her husband. The certificate issued by AVIVA Insurance Company
would show that the respondent was not on their payroll and, thus, it
cannot be said that she had a regular source of income and further it
cannot be said that by any income generated on commission she would
be able to enjoy the same status which she was enjoying in her
matrimonial home.
25. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out various loopholes in
the explanation rendered with regard to purchase of flat and Santro car.
However, I am of the view that at this stage the Court cannot minutely
examine the matter as recording of evidence would be necessary. At
this stage the explanation seems to be satisfactory. I find force in the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

submission made by counsel for the respondent that even the

petitioner has not disclosed his assets and true income. Courts have
taken judicious notice of the fact that few people pay proper taxes to
the Government and self-employed persons seldom disclose their true
income. It has also been held that while assessing the income of a
spouse some guess work is to be done by the Court.
26. This Court in the case of Jayant Bhagava v. Priya Bhargava,
reported at 181 (2011) DLT 602 this Court had culled out various
factors to be taken into consideration to assess the income of a spouse.
It would be useful to reproduce paras 12, 16 and 17 of the judgment:
“It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar
status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the duty
of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse
lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life
of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce proceedings
the parties should be able to maintain themselves and should be
sufficiently entitled to be represented in judicial proceedings. If in
case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient income,
the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same. (See Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun, reported at (1997) 7 SCC
7).
16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are
to be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the
order based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful.
While guessing the income of the spouse, when the sources of
income are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court
can take into consideration amongst others the following factors:
(i) Life style of the spouse;
(ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage and the manner in
which marriage was performed;
(iii) Destination of honeymoon;
(iv) Ownership of motor vehicles;
(v) Household facilities;
(vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help;
(vii) Credit cards;
(viii) Bank account details;
(ix) Club Membership;
(x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid;
(xi) Property or properties purchased;
(xii) Rental income;
(xiii) Amount of rent paid;
(xiv) Amount spent on travel/holiday;
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(xv) Locality of residence;

(xvi) Number of mobile phones;
(xvii) Qualification of spouse;
(xviii) School(s) where the child or children are studying when
parties were residing together;
(xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred;
(xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities of children when
parties were residing together;
(xxi) Capacity to repay loan.
17. These are some of the factors, which may be considered by any
court in guesstimating or having a rough idea or to guess the income
of a spouse. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that one
cannot ignore the fact that an Indian woman has been given an
equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and she has a right to live in dignity and according to the status of
her husband. In this case, the stand taken by the respondent with
respect to his earning is unbelievable.”
27. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a businessman; a
Director of a company, who was first residing at Faridabad and then in
a bungalow at Sainik Farm; he has a plot measuring 952 sq. ft. at
Faridabad; he is a member of prestigious club in Friends Colony; is at
present also residing at Friends Colony surely his wife is entitled to live
in a same kind of status as he is enjoying.
28. In the case of Classic Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Johnson Enterprises,
reported at 2010 (2) R.A.J. 406 (Del.) this Court had an occasion to
revisit the law with respect to the scope of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. It was held that:
“19. It is no longer res integra that the powers of the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are very
wide, however, the same are to be exercised not as a Court of
Appeal, and the High Court should be slow to interfere unless there
is grave miscarriage of justice.
20. In the case of Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC
1, the Apex Court has re-visited the law with regard to the power of
the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India and while taking into consideration various judgments has held
that no doubt the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and
227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals, the
same are to be exercised not as a Court of Appeal and can neither
review or re-apprise the evidence, but ordinarily should interfere
where there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of
law:
“38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of
law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not
act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review
nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which
determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports
to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to
substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal.
The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only
in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and
inferior tribunals within the limits of law.
39. In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram1 this
Court stated : (SCC p. 458, para 16)
“16. … unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or
flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for
the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
to interfere. If there is evidence on record on which a finding
can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself
either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under
Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court
should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the
appropriate authorities.”
40. Even prior to Chandavarkar1 in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v.
Laxmibai R. Tarta2 dealing with the supervisory power of a High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, Bhagwati, J. (as His
Lordship then was) stated : (Bathutmal Raichand Oswal case2 ,
SCC pp. 864–65, para 7)
“7. … If an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of
the record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of certiorari
it should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to correction by
the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
227. The power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be
invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court
can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal.
The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the
legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the
decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts.”
(emphasis supplied)
41. In State of Maharashtra v. Milind3 this Court observed : (SCC
p. 29, para 33)
“33. … The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, while exercising the power of judicial
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

review against an order of inferior tribunal being supervisory

and not appellate, the High Court would be justified in
interfering with the conclusion of the tribunal only when it
records a finding that the inferior tribunal's conclusion is based
upon exclusion of some admissible evidence or consideration of
some inadmissible evidence or the inferior tribunal has no
jurisdiction at all or that the finding is such, which no
reasonable man could arrive at, on the materials on record.”
42. In State v. Navjot Sandhu4 this Court reiterated : (SCC pp.
656–57, para 28)
“28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India
gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be
limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The
supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate
tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that
they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and
can be used to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to
interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power
under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to
attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power,
when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to
exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that
this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must
be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct
mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of
revisional powers it would require very exceptional
circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was
not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that
the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised ‘as the
cloak of an appeal in disguise’.”
(emphasis supplied)”
29. In my view the learned trial court has considered the rival
contentions between the parties and after taking into consideration the
affidavits filed on record granted a conservative amount as
maintenance to the respondent in the sum of Rs. 5500/-. A reading of
the order of the learned trial court and having examined the rival
contentions of counsel for the parties in detail it cannot be said that the
order passed by learned trial court has led to grave miscarriage of
justice or there is any flagrant violation of law. It is not for this Court to
review or re-appreciate the grounds, which led to the passing of the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Thursday, February 15, 2024
Printed For: Piyush Wadhwa, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

impugned order nor it is for this Court to substitute its own decision for
that of the decision of the learned trial court, a power which is to be
exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases. Although in the
application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act the petitioner
did not disclose her association with AVIVA Insurance Company but
since in a subsequent affidavit all the relevant facts were disclosed, I
do not find this is a fit case to dismiss the application filed under
Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of concealment as
some distinction has to be made between a commercial transaction and
a matrimonial dispute and a lady cannot be deprived of maintenance by
her husband, who is legally entitled to maintain her merely on this
ground. To dismiss the application on the ground of concealment alone
would be extremely harsh, a lady cannot be forced to stay in poverty.
The trial court has only granted Rs. 5500/- to the respondent, which is
a very meager amount in today's day and age. It seems the trial court
has given benefit to the petitioner based on the earning of the
respondent from the AVIVA Insurance Company. I do not find this a fit
case to interfere in the order passed by the trial court. The trial court
will decide the matter finally without being affected by any of the
observations made by this Court while passing the present order.
30. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
———
1 (1986) 4 SCC 447.

2 (1975) 1 SCC 858

3
(2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117

4 (2003) 6 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.