* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:
26. h November, 2014 + I.P.A. No.67/ 2013 JASMEET KAUR TALWAR AND ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate and Ms. Anupama, Advocate. versus GURJIT SINGH TALWAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate and Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL I.A. No.11050/ 2014 (u/s. 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 r/w Section 151 CPC) in I.P.A. No.67/ 2013 1. This suit (in the form of a Petition as an indigent person) has been filed by the two Petitioners; Petitioner No.1 is the wife and Petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the Respondent.
2. In the main petition, maintenance on account of Respondent‟s cruelty and neglect to maintain the Petitioners has been claimed. It is averred that Petitioner No.1 was married to the Respondent on 31.10.1982. A daughter i.e. Petitioner No.2 and a son were born to Petitioner No.1 from the loins of the Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent had been treating Petitioner No.1 with cruelty ever since the inception of marriage. In the year 2011, the cruelty inflicted upon Petitioner No.1 escalated to such an extent that she had to leave her matrimonial home at Sainik Farm and start living with her brother. Similarly, the Respondent and his son are also not on talking terms with each other because of the cruelty bestowed upon the said son. The son along with his wife are also living separately from the Petitioners and the Respondent.
3. It is averred that Petitioner No.2 returned to Delhi after completing her studies in Bangalore in the year 2013. The Respondent perpetuated physical violence upon her and she too had to leave her father‟s house and stay with Petitioner No.1 at the house of Petitioner no.1‟s brother.
4. While the inquiry whether the Petitioners are entitled to sue as indigent persons or not is pending before the Court, the instant application has been moved by Petitioner No.2 claiming a sum of ₹ 66,25,000/- for meeting the expenditure on her wedding i.e. for sagan, mehendi, wedding, gifts, etc. etc. It has been averred in the application that Petitioner No.2 got engaged to one Dashmesh Aulakh and rokka ceremony was held on 13.04.2014. Petitioner No.1 had to borrow money from her family members and friends for the said ceremony and also for making advance payments towards functions like Anand Karaj, Sagan, etc. It has been stated that mehendi, sagan and wedding are scheduled to be held on 25th, 26th and 27th of December, 2014 respectively.
5. According to the averments made by the Petitioners, the Respondent possesses 5 cars which are Mercedes Benz E-250, BMW3Series, Toyota Fortuner, Hyundai Verna and Hyundai I10. He also owns a bungalow in Sainik Farm admeasuring 1100 sq. yards which has all the modern facilities, landscaped lawns, servants, garages etc. Further, Respondent‟s family owns a property opposite Filmistan Theatre and also a flat on ground floor at GK-II, New Delhi. The Respondent has also purchased shops at Masjid Moth; he owns a godown in Tuglakabad and is fetching rent from the said shops and godown. It is urged that the Respondent has also purchased a 3 acre farmhouse at Uppal Farms at Bilaspur on Jaipur Highway. The Respondent had been carrying on business in the name and style of Gujarat Tent Services, Gujarat Samiana, Tulip Caterers, Select Tours and Talsoft Information Technology. The Respondent has also opened a Mughlai Restaurant in the name and style of Shan-e-Delhi and has hired a chef from Taj Mansingh Hotel to run the same. The Respondent is alleged to have initially started a five star resort in the name and style of „DE VIVENDI‟ resort at Manali with only 15 rooms. However, now the said resort has flourished and has more than 40 rooms alongwith Discothèque, Conference Room, 2 gymnasium, gardens and 4-5 rooms even have the facility of Jacuzzi.
6. To show the means of the Respondent, the Petitioners have further averred that the Respondent has given an interest free unsecured loan of about ₹ 2.5 crores to his friends and relatives. The Respondent is a man of sufficient means and that is why he spent sum of about ₹ 10 lacs on a family trip to Turkey which included the Petitioners and the Respondent. The Respondent also incurred expenditure of around 1500 Euros for Petitioner No.2‟s educational trip to France. The details of bifurcation of the amount of ₹ 66,00,000/- as claimed in the application are given in a tabulated form hereunder:Sagan - 400 guests to be accommodated at Indian ₹ 5 lacs Habitat centre and Gurudwara and Payments for catering. Plaintiff No.2 also has to buy clothes and ₹ 4 lacs household items for marriage Gifts to be given to groom side and his relatives I.A. No.11050/ 2014 in IPA No.67/ 2013 ₹ 3 lacs Mehendi Wedding ceremony including catering, decorations ₹ 12 lacs and other expenses 7. Jewellery ₹ 30 lacs Total ₹ 66 lacs The Respondent has contested the application by way of filing a written reply.
8. At the outset, it may be noted that the learned senior counsel for the Respondent in the very beginning made a statement at the Bar that the Respondent is not shirking his responsibility to perform Petitioner No.2‟s wedding and is ready to incur reasonable expenditure therefor. The learned counsel for the Respondent had offered a sum of ₹ 5 lacs to meet the expenditure of wedding and had also offered catering facilities on various functions from his own company.
9. Respondent, however, has denied his means as have been claimed by the Petitioners. It is stated that no cruelty was ever inflicted upon the Petitioners by the Respondent. It is urged that the averments made by the Petitioners are defamatory and that the claim of an amount of over ₹ 66 lakhs to perform Petitioner No.2‟s marriage is exaggerated and exorbitant.
10. It is urged that in order to claim maintenance under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the Act of 1956), the Petitioners‟ conduct is a relevant factor. The conduct of the Petitioners herein had been demeaning, reprehensible and disrespectful to the Respondent and his elders. The Respondent was never informed about Petitioner No.2‟s rokka ceremony. Even the old and infirm grandparents of Petitioner No.2 (Respondent‟s parents) who stay in Delhi were not invited to the rokka ceremony and Respondent‟s opinion/ approval about the boy was not sought.
11. It is case of the Respondent that the Petitioners are staying at Petitioner No.1‟s parental house. They have left the Respondent‟s home on their own and have themselves got enough means to spend the amount claimed on marriage. It is stated that the business of Tulip Caterers and Shan-e-Delhi has been closed more than 15 years back. The assets and living style of the Respondent is also stated to have been exaggerated.
12. In the rejoinder, the Petitioners have reiterated the averments made in the petition and have denied those made in the reply. It is urged that the Respondent has pledged 1 kg. of gold amounting to about ₹ 30 lacs with ICICI Bank to avail credit facility. It is further stated that the income tax returns and bank accounts of the Respondent placed on record reveal that the Respondent has been paying monthly EMIs of over ₹ 8 lacs. Only a person of high income can pay such monthly instalments towards discharge of loan or otherwise.
13. It is also stated that the jewellery of Petitioner No.1 is in possession of the Respondent, so new jewellery is required to be made for Petitioner No.2.
14. The definition of “Maintenance” as given under Section 3 of the Act of 1956 is a very wide. Section 3 (b) of the Act of 1956 is extracted hereunder:
“(b) "Maintenance" includes(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of an incident to her marriage.”
15. Thus, it goes without saying and this has not even been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the Respondent that maintenance includes reasonable expenses on the marriage of an unmarried daughter.
16. Now, the question for consideration before me is what is „reasonable‟.
17. In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 19.02.2014, Petitioner No.1 filed an Affidavit of her income and assets consisting of moveable and immoveable properties and liabilities and expenditure. The Respondent also filed an Affidavit of his assets and liabilities, although it was not given in the exact format as had been given by Petitioner No.1. In para 10 of the Affidavit, the Respondent has given a list of various immoveable properties owned by him or his family members. In para 12, it has been admitted by the Respondent that he owns a Hyundai Verna Car, one BMW3Series make year 2012 and one Maximo Van, Mahindra. He has admitted that the resort at Manali is owned by M/s Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The resort has 43 rooms but without any star rating. It is also admitted by the Respondent that he has 13,50,000 shares of this company and is thus, a major share holder in the same.
18. The Petitioners have placed on record some photographs of the Respondent‟s residence in Sainik Farm. Apart from the vehicles as admitted by the Respondent, a Toyota Fortuner and Mercedes Benz E250 are also parked in the garage of the house. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Toyota Fortuner was being used only for the purpose of business and was owned by the company. Photocopies of the resort at Manali and of some of the rooms and the facilities available therein have also been placed on record by the Petitioners. A screen shot from the internet titled „Luxury Resort for People with Style‟ has also been placed on record. The genuineness of the photocopies of the bungalow at Sainik Farm, photocopies of the resort and the screen shot from the link to „De Vivendi Resorts‟, Manali have not been disputed or controverted by the Respondent. Hence, it goes without saying that the Respondent is a man of means. He is also holding 13,50,000 shares in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. therefore, he has got the means and capacity to make reasonable expenditure on the marriage of his daughter, Petitioner No.2.
19. But now the question arises, what are the reasonable expenses in a marriage and to what extent can a wife or for that matter, a daughter force her husband/ father to meet the expenditure on the marriage of the daughter. It may be noted that affluent people do spend huge amounts of money on building houses and solemnising weddings in the family. If the Respondent can own a bungalow in Sainik Farm, have a major stake in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which owns the earlier said resort and has various other properties, he has the capacity and can spend a good amount on his daughter‟s wedding as well. The Petitioners have given various claims which total up just above ₹ 66 lacs.
20. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Dowry Act) prohibits giving or taking of dowry whereas Section 2 defines „dowry‟ as any property or valuable security given by or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage in connection with marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Dowry Act provides for penalty for demanding dowry. Certain exceptions have been made with regard to voluntary gifts given by the parents to the bride or any person related to the bride. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act are extracted hereunder:
“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to or, in relation to,(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in list maintained in accordance with rule made under this Act; (b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
21. Thus, it may be noted that the presents given by the parents of the bride at the time of her marriage without any demand having been made in this behalf is permissible, provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the presents are of customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom or on whose behalf such presents are being given.
22. Therefore, it can very well be said that the presents which may be given by Petitioner No.1 on her behalf as well as on behalf of the Respondent will not amount to dowry if they are of customary nature and their value is not excessive vis-a-vis the financial status of the parties. But if the gifts are excessive, then even if voluntarily given, they may amount to dowry.
23. The term “reasonable expenditure” as mentioned in Section 20 (3) of the Dowry Act has not been defined in the Act. As per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2003, the word “reasonable” means rational; in accordance with reason, not irrational or absurd; proportionate; and not greatly less or more than might be thought likely as appropriate.
24. Similarly, as per Roget‟s Thesaurus, 2004 Edition, the word “reasonable” has been defined to mean moderate, not extreme; plausible, well grounded, well founded; wise and just.
25. Hence, it can safely be said that “reasonable expenditure” in the context of the expenditure on marriage of an unmarried daughter will mean that it is fair and not too high. However, it will be difficult to calculate reasonable expenditure by precise mathematical calculations. The Court will have to reach to a sum primarily considering the financial status of the parties. For that purpose, the Court also has to make some guess work.
26. I have already observed above that the Respondent maintains luxury cars and is a major shareholder in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which runs a luxurious resort in Manali. This fact has not even been disputed by the Respondent. It is also evident from the record that the Respondent has pledged about 1 kg. of gold. to avail credit facility. It can also be presumed that the credit facility must have been obtained by the Respondent in connection with his business.
27. The Petitioners have prayed for a sum of more than ₹ 5 lacs for serving 400 guests at Indian Habitat Centre which to my mind cannot be said to be excessive. Similarly, with the sky rocketing prices of the wedding clothes of a bride and other household items, provision of ₹ 4 lacs for the same made by the Petitioners cannot be said to be excessive. At the same time, referring to the definition of „dowry‟, giving of gifts of an amount of ₹ 12 lacs by an unwilling father, even if Petitioner No.1, the mother is willing, cannot be said to be reasonable. As against the prayer to award a sum of ₹ 12 lacs towards these gifts, it will be appropriate to limit the same to ₹ 4 lacs.
28. Further, it goes without saying that mehendi ceremony is one of the most essential part of an Indian wedding in recent times where all friends and near relations from both sides (bride and groom) come together. Expenditure of ₹ 3 lacs on this however, seems to be a little on the higher side. It will be appropriate to restrict the same to ₹ 2 lacs.
29. The Petitioners have stated that there would be an expenditure of ₹ 12 lacs on catering, decoration and other expenses at the time of the wedding. This sum also appears to be just and reasonable. Of course, gold which has been pledged by the Respondent with ICICI Bank may be worth about ₹ 30 lacs, but it will be quite excessive to expect a father to gift jewellery worth ₹ 30 lacs at his daughter‟s wedding. Again, it will be reasonable to restrict the demand for purchase of jewellery to ₹ 10 lacs. The total amount claimed and held to be reasonable by this Court is thus, extracted hereunder in a tabulated form:Sl. Category No.Amount Amount Claimed Awarded (₹ in lacs) 30. (₹ in lacs) 1. Sagan - 400 guests to be accommodated at Indian Habitat Centre and Gurudwara and Payments for catering. 5.0 5.0 2. Petitioner No.2 also has to buy clothes 4.0 and household items for marriage 4.0 3. Gifts to be given to groom‟s side and his 12.0 relatives 4.0 4. Mehendi 2.0 5. Wedding ceremony including catering, 12.0 decorations and other expenses 12.0 6. Jewellery 30.0 10.0 Total 66.0 37.0 3.0 Although, it is very difficult to say as to what would be the reasonable expenditure on the marriage of a daughter, but in case of a father who may have means and in the circumstances of this case, the reasonable expenditure of marriage would approximately be ₹37 lacs.
31. The Respondent is directed to pay the amount of ₹37 lacs to Petitioner No.1 by virtue of a pay order or to deposit the same with the Registrar General of this Court by 02.12.2014.
32. The application stands disposed of accordingly. I.P.A. No.67/ 2013 Renotify on 22.01.2015. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER26 2014 vk