Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan

HELD: 1.1 The Family Court unambiguously held that the respondent neglected to maintain the appellant, for the elaborate reasons recorded in its judgment dated 28th January, 2015. That finding of fact was upheld by the High Court. The Family Court has also found as a fact that the appellant was unemployed, though she is an MA in English and holds a Post-graduate Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication and is also a Law Graduate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. The High Court has not disturbed that finding recorded by the Family Court. Resultantly, both the Courts have concurrently found that, in law, the respondent was obliged to maintain the appellant. [Para 9] [356-G-H; 357-A-B]

1.2 During the pendency of the maintenance application filed by the appellant on 16th July, 2003, the respondent’s father filed a civil suit which, according to the appellant, was intended to prevent attachment of the family property of the respondent from execution of the order in her favour passed in the maintenance proceedings. The suit for declaration filed by the respondent’s father was dismissed on 30th August, 2003, after a full-fledged trial but to prevent attachment of land/family property in interim maintenance case, he moved an application for restoration of the suit. Further, despite the injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 28th October, 2004, which was operating against the respondent, he approached the courts in Canada and obtained an ex-parte divorce allegedly to escape the liability to pay the maintenance amount and also adopted delaying tactics in the progress of the subject maintenance proceedings. [Para 12] [357G-H; 358-A-B]

1.3 The High Court took into account all the relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the respondent about inability to pay maintenance amount to the appellant on the finding that he was well educated [B.Com, M.A (Economics) & MBA from USA] and an able-bodied person. Therefore, it was not open to the respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his wife. The view so taken by the High Court is unassailable. [Para 13] [358-D-E; 360-F]

1.4 The principle invoked by the High Court for determination of monthly maintenance amount payable to the appellant on the basis of notional minimum income of the respondent as per the current minimum wages in Delhi is untenable. Regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and his family, his past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal of the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until 2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and unsubstantiated plea was taken by him that he is unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is highly qualified and an ablebodied person; his monthly income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/-; and that Supreme Court in an earlier Criminal Appeal (where interim maintenance was in issue) had prima facie found that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month commencing from November 1, 2014. At this distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete justice between the parties, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the appellant towards the maintenance amount with effect from January 2010 and at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month with effect from 1st June, 2018 until further orders. The impugned judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified in the aforementioned terms. [Paras 15, 16] [361-B-F-G]