Riya Budhiraja Vs. Rajeev Budhiraja - Court Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: November 22, 2013 + CM(M) No.1030/2011 RIYA BUDHIRAJA Through ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. versus RAJEEV BUDHIRAJA Through ..... Respondent None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner-wife has filed the present petition seeking to set-aside the order dated 7th August, 2010 passed in HMA No.184/2008 whereby the application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 151 CPC for modification of the order dated 31st March, 2009 was allowed.

2. In the order dated 31st March, 2009, the learned Addl. District Judge had come to the conclusion that the income of the respondent is not less than `75,000/- per month, as he himself is spending more than `60,000/- per month. The Court directed the respondent to pay `25,000/- per month to the petitioner for her maintenance, with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 15th May, 2008. He was also directed to pay her `11,000/as litigation expenses.

3. However, on filing of the application under Section 151 CPC for modification, the same Addl. District Judge modified his order dated 31 st March, 2009 and reduced the maintenance amount from `25,000/- to `9,000/- per month. The said order has been challenged by the petitionerwife before this Court.

4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. However, since 30th April, 2012, no one is appearing on his behalf. The petitioner, Riya Budhiraja, is appearing herself. She has informed the Court that the respondent has not complied with any orders passed by the learned trial Court. He has failed to pay either `25,000/- per month as fixed by the order dated 31st March, 2009 or show any intention even as of today to pay the maintenance @ `9,000/- per month as fixed by the impugned order. The respondent did not appear despite of service. The petitioner has informed the Court that her husband has fled away to UAE and has also taken her daughter with him and Passport authority has lodged FIR against him for showing forged documents.

5. The petitioner has also filed many additional documents in order to show the income and the properties purchased by the respondent after passing of both the orders. The same have been taken on the record after hearing the petitioner. The details of the said documents are given as under:(i) Copy of Sale Deed dated 4th January, 2012 in respect of a residential plot bearing No.2113 ‘B’ in Block No.E, measuring 130.90 Sq. Mtrs. situated in the residential colony known as Palam Vihar, in and around Vill. Chauma & Carterpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana in favour of the respondent. The said property was purchased by the respondent from one Mrs.Seema Rani wife of Mr.Subhash Chand, resident of Vill. & P.O. Dhindar, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP) for a total consideration of `47,10,000/-. (ii) Copy of Release Deed dated 7th November, 2009 executed by the respondent in favour of his brother Sh.Sanjeev Budhiraja whereby the respondent gave up his rights and interest in the property bearing No.175, area measuring 133.75 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Kalyan Vihar, Delhi-110009 in favour of his brother. According to the petitioner, the said property is a matrimonial house and as per the petitioner, it was done deliberately so that the maintenance should not be paid to the petitioner and the said deed was executed after passing of the order dated 31 st March, 2009. (iii) Details of visits conducted by the respondent during the years 2009 to 2012 which show that the respondent was visiting outside India very frequently in the countries like Sri Lanka, Dubai, UK & Thailand. (iv) Copy of FIR No.235 dated 27th October, 2012 for offences under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 which depicts about the forgery committed by the respondent. (v) Copy of the letter dated 28th March, 2013 regarding forgery committed by the respondent in the passport, the same was sent by Regional Passport Office, Delhi.

6. All these documents produced by the petitioner clearly establish that the respondent had sufficient funds at the time of passing of impugned order otherwise, how he could purchase the immovable properties in his name which were bought by him after passing both the orders, i.e. dated 31st March, 2009 and 7th August, 2010. It shows that the submission of the petitioner in the application for modification of order dated 31 st March, 2009 was correct. The findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order are thus liable to be set-aside even on the basis of subsequent evidence produced by the petitioner. The malafide of the respondent is further shown when the release deed was executed by him in favour of his brother, after the learned Trial Court had fixed the maintenance @ `25,000/- per month to be paid by him to the petitioner vide order dated 31st March, 2009. These documents speak for themselves. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable, rather these documents referred to by the petitioner show that the respondent was able to pay the maintenance even more than `25,000/-.

7. The present petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance to the petitioner strictly in terms of the order dated 31st March, 2009. In case, the said amount is not paid by the respondent within 8 weeks from today, the petitioner would be entitled to take appropriate action against the respondent by initiating the execution proceedings in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner is also entitled for costs of `20,000/-. (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER22 2013