Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: In an application filed by complainant under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), Dr. Neha Kheria, MM., Mahila Court-01, opined that prima facie it appeared that complainant was not only highly qualified, but she was a working woman. The Court opined complainant could not be held entitled to get interim maintenance at this stage, as complainant was found to be capable of maintaining herself. Further, regarding maintenance of child, the Court opined that in the presence of biological father of child, the stepfather could not be asked to maintain the child. Thus, the Court opined that complainant’s daughter was also not entitled to get maintenance from respondent.
Background
In the present case, complainant stated that she got married to the respondent on 30-04-2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was complainant’s second marriage, and she had a daughter from her first marriage. It was stated that respondent had ensured complainant that he would take care of the needs of complainant’s daughter like his own child. However, after two days of the marriage, respondent’s attitude changed, and he started talking about his intimate relationship with other Indian and foreign females. Respondent did not take care of complainant’s daughter and refused to bear her school expenses.
In August 2015, complainant found the documents related to respondent’s second divorce, and when complainant inquired about the same from respondent, he abused complainant. On 19-03-2016, respondent told complainant that he was going to Pune, and before he comes back, complainant should leave the house. Thus, when respondent went to Pune, complainant came back to her house at Noida with her daughter. However, on complainant’s repeated requests to reside at Mumbai address for the sake of education of her daughter, she came at Mumbai address on 26-03-2016 with her daughter, but respondent refused to pay their daily expenses.
Complainant stated that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by respondent and demanded dowry from her. It was further stated that respondent earns Rs. 16 lakhs per month and there were other sources for his income. Complainant was dependent upon her parents for maintenance and respondent was wilfully neglecting to maintain complaint and her daughter.
However, respondent stated that he had already informed complainant that he had been divorced twice and denied all allegations of cruelty and harassment raised by complainant. Respondent further stated that complainant was not entitled to maintenance as she was well-qualified and had rich working experience.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that prima facie it appeared that complainant was not only highly qualified, but she was a working woman. Complainant had done Masters in HR from NIBM and PMP certification. The Court further observed that as per the complainant’s income affidavit, she had two self-acquired properties, and received Rs. 6,16,600 from sale of mutual funds. On the court query made, complainant stated that she had mutual funds of Rs.50 lakhs, as her first husband had paid Rs. 40 lakhs for herself and her daughter which she invested in mutual funds. Thus, the Court opined complainant could not be held entitled to get interim maintenance at this stage, as complainant was found to be capable of maintaining herself.
Further, regarding maintenance of child, the Court opined that in the presence of biological father of child, the stepfather could not be asked to maintain the child. Complainant had already received maintenance amount of Rs. 40 lakhs for herself and her daughter from her former husband. Thus, the Court opined that complainant’s daughter was also not entitled to get maintenance from respondent.
The matter would next be listed on 07-05-2024.
[Kiran Jyoti Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, Case Regn. No. 691 of 2022, Order dated 02-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Complainant: Rishabh Bansal, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Gautam Panjwani and Himanshi Nagpal, Advocates.
This is a fraud case were Gaurav Bhatia has been involved from the start. Kiran Maini is his sister in law, who was also living with him in his office supposedly in Bengali lane based on documents filed in Patiala House. He has also helped her gain money from her first divorce were a large chunk of payment was in cash, as is evident buy the properties owned by Kiran Main were the market rate is way above the purchase price which shows payment of cash.. Gaurav Bhatia has been involved in extortion using women, for his personal needs by filing frivolous cases for them. Gaurav should be pulled up by the supreme court bar association and thrown out by BJP for being involved in such spurious activities