A sessions court has quashed an order granting ₹15,000 maintenance to a woman under the Domestic Violence Act, stating that “she very conveniently and mischievously concealed and withheld from the trial court the factum of her employment as a government teacher”.
Special Judge Virender Bhat also asked the trial court to deal with the hiding of employment by the woman while deciding her petition under the Act and pass appropriate orders against her with regard to concealment of material facts.
The husband had challenged the trial court order. It had postponed the decision on his application seeking modification of the order granting maintenance with the observation that it could be decided only after the parties lead evidence regarding their respective financial status.
Allowing a complaint by the woman, the mahila court had directed the husband to pay her ₹15,000 per month as maintenance. The husband had challenged the mahila court order in the Delhi High Court.
The High Court disposed his petition observing that “the day [the] offer letter for joining [as teacher] is posted to the woman, the petitioner [husband] shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of maintenance order, and if the woman does not join despite appointment the letter, she shall not be entitled to claim maintenance”.
Thereafter, the woman moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order which disposed her petition as not pressed and said she had the liberty to move the appropriate forum for relief. Both the woman and her husband then moved the mahila court seeking enhancement of maintenance and setting aside of the order by which the woman was granted maintenance of ₹15,000 respectively.
After hearing both parties, the mahila court said their respective petitions could be decided only after taking evidence from them regarding their financial status. It was this order of the mahila that the husband challenged in the court of Mr. Bhat. In his appeal, the husband said his application should have been decided by on the basis of the documents filed on record as well as the admission made by the respondent (his estranged wife) that she had been employed as a government teacher since 2010.
Allowing his appeal, Mr. Bhat said: “The impugned order of the Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be sustained. Same is hereby set-aside. The petition filed by the appellant... is hereby allowed. The maintenance order... dated September 24, 2009, is hereby cancelled... The appellant is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent with effect from December 21, 2010.”
“It needs to be noted here that respondent has very conveniently and mischievously concealed and withheld from the trial court the factum of her employment as government teacher till January 28, 2016, that is, for about six years. Even in her petition under Section 25 [2] of the Domestic Violence Act, filed on May 30, 2013, pursuant to the liberty given to her by the Supreme Court... she has stated herself to be unemployed and having no source of income, except the maintenance being given to her by the appellant in terms of the judgment dated September 24, 2009, [by the trial court]. The trial court shall deal with this aspect while deciding the respondent’s petition...under Section 25 [2] of the Domestic Violence Act and pass appropriate orders against her with regard to the said concealment of material facts,” Mr. Bhat said.
