Brig Sanjay Puri vs.shweta Puri & Anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1220221
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnDec-20-2018
AppellantBrig Sanjay Puri
RespondentShweta Puri & Anr
Excerpt:
in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of judgement:20. h december, 2018 $~17 * % + mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018, cm appls 44963-64/2018 coram: brig sanjay puri through: mr. manoj chouhan & mr. vikas versus shweta puri & anr through: mr. ujjwal jain & mr. pranav malhotra, advocates. nagpal, advocates. ..... appellant ........ respondents hon'ble mr. justice g.s. sistani hon'ble ms. justice jyoti singh g.s. sistani, j.(oral) cm.appl449642018 (delay of 107 days) 1. this is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 107 days delay in filing the present appeal. for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is condoned.2. the application stands disposed of. mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 3. the present appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the family court on an application filed by the respondent/wife seeking rent.4. some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.02.2007. a daughter was born on 14.02.2008 out of their wedlock. the parties have been residing separately since the month of july, 2015. a son was born out of the earlier marriage of the appellant/husband is residing alongwith him, while the daughter who mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 1 of 6 was born out of the said wedlock is residing with the respondent/wife. since the official accommodation provided to the appellant/husband bearing no.239/2, vikram vihar, delhi cantt. was not being vacated by the respondent/wife, an order was passed by the estate officer, which was challenged by the wife by filing a writ petition in this court. while the respondent/wife agreed to vacate the official accommodation, the learned single judge granted liberty to the wife to make an application before the family court for payment of the rented accommodation. in this backdrop, the family court has fixed the rate of rent @ rs.42,000/- per month based on a copy of the rent agreement filed by the respondent/wife before the family court. the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, which have been culled out upon reading of impugned order are as under : (i) as per the respondent/wife, the husband is receiving salary of rs.2,50,000/- (approx.) per month and the husband is required to provide a residential accommodation as per the status of the husband; (ii) the husband is a man of means who is having a luxurious lifestyle and is also the owner of an orchard; (iii) as per the appellant/husband, his take home salary is rs.1,14,000/- per month, after deduction, out of gross salary of rs.2,26,416; (iv) the husband is already paying maintenance @ rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. (v) the official accommodation provided to the appellant/husband was three bedrooms house as averred by the respondent/wife in mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 2 of 6 the writ petition, which was filed before this court and also finds mentioned in para 6 of the order of the learned single judge dated 13.11.2017, which has attained finality. sample copies of lease deeds have been placed on record by the appellant/husband to show that the prevailing rent in and around dwarka is rs.25,000/- per month. (vi) the appellant/husband has to maintain himself, his son and his old mother. he is also paying instalments for a property in ghaziabad in the joint name alongwith his wife.5. almost identical arguments have been raised before us today by the learned counsels for the parties.6. learned counsel for the appellant/husband has highlighted the fact that the present accommodation provided in terms of the lease deed is conspicuously absent and thus the lease deed sought to be relied upon is suspicious in nature. counsel further submits that the family court has failed to take into account the liabilities of the appellant/husband including the payment of rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter. it has also been contended that merely because the parties were jointly residing in a government accommodation, which had three bedrooms or five bedrooms as submitted by the respondent/wife cannot be a ground for granting an accommodation of five rooms to the wife, for two people, post their separation and unnecessarily the appellant/husband would be burdened with extra rent. it is the contention of counsel for the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife is residing with a 10 years mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 3 of 6 old daughter and a two-bedroom set accommodation would be sufficient for their stay.7. the counsel for the appellant/husband also submitted that at present, the appellant/husband has been transferred to ranchi where he has been provided with a 3 bedrooms accommodation and in case the parties were residing together, the respondent/wife would be entitled to a similar accommodation.8. the submissions of the counsel for the appellant/husband have been rebutted by the counsel for the respondent/wife, who submits that the appellant/husband has no liabilities; the son out of first marriage is a major and is independent. the mother of the appellant/husband is also self-sufficient. moreover, in addition to the salary, the appellant enjoys many perks being a senior army officer.9. according to the respondent/wife, the parties were jointly residing in a govt. accommodation comprising of 5 bedrooms. it is submitted that in the order passed by the learned single judge inadvertently a three- bedroom accommodation has been mentioned. counsel for the respondent/wife has also submitted that the respondent is entitled to live in the same status as that of her husband and enjoy the same facility, which she did prior to her separation. the respondent has also highlighted the fact that the actual rent being paid is for a three- bedroom house as the 4th bedroom has been put under a lock by the owner.10. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the order passed by the family court and have also considered their rival submissions. mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 4 of 6 11. today, we have been informed that the appellant/husband is residing in an accommodation of three-bedroom. even assuming that when the parties were residing together, the accommodation provided to the appellant/husband was a five-bedroom accommodation in delhi, we are of the view that the accommodation provided at the time when the parties were residing together cannot be a benchmark alone to be considered while providing the accommodation to the respondent/wife and her 10 years old daughter. copies of various rent deeds have been placed on record, which show that the rent of a three-bedroom house is to the tune of rs.25,000/- per month in and around dwarka area, where the wife is residing. taking into consideration the facts of the given case, we are of the considered view that the respondent/wife is entitled to a three-bedroom accommodation in the area where the rent is approximately rs.25,000/- per month. the appellant/husband has agreed to offer and provide a three-bedroom accommodation in and around dwarka to the respondent/wife within a period of one month, as sought by the counsel for the appellant/ husband, on the ground that the appellant is posted out of delhi. the proposal shall be placed before the family court and the order dated 06.06.2018 is modified to the extent that instead of rent of rs.42,000/- per month, the appellant/husband will provide a three-bedroom accommodation in dwarka within a radius of 5 k.m., as agreed, with the similar amenities and facilities as in the existing accommodation.12. in above terms, the appeal stands disposed of. mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 5 of 6 cm.appl449632018 (stay) 13. in view of the order passed in the appeal, the application stands disposed of. g.s.sistani, j.jyoti singh, j.december20 2018/ck mat.app.(f.c.) 279/2018 page 6 of 6
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgement:

20. h December, 2018 $~17 * % + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018, CM APPLs 44963-64/2018 CORAM: BRIG SANJAY PURI Through: Mr. Manoj Chouhan & Mr. Vikas Versus SHWETA PURI & ANR Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain & Mr. Pranav Malhotra, Advocates. Nagpal, Advocates. ..... Appellant ........ RESPONDENTS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J.

(ORAL) CM.APPL449642018 (delay of 107 days) 1. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 107 days delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent/wife seeking rent.

4. Some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.02.2007. A daughter was born on 14.02.2008 out of their wedlock. The parties have been residing separately since the month of July, 2015. A son was born out of the earlier marriage of the appellant/husband is residing alongwith him, while the daughter who MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 1 of 6 was born out of the said wedlock is residing with the respondent/wife. Since the official accommodation provided to the appellant/husband bearing no.239/2, Vikram Vihar, Delhi Cantt. was not being vacated by the respondent/wife, an order was passed by the Estate Officer, which was challenged by the wife by filing a writ petition in this Court. While the respondent/wife agreed to vacate the official accommodation, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the wife to make an application before the Family Court for payment of the rented accommodation. In this backdrop, the Family Court has fixed the rate of rent @ Rs.42,000/- per month based on a copy of the rent agreement filed by the respondent/wife before the Family Court. The submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, which have been culled out upon reading of impugned order are as under : (i) As per the respondent/wife, the husband is receiving salary of Rs.2,50,000/- (approx.) per month and the husband is required to provide a residential accommodation as per the status of the husband; (ii) The husband is a man of means who is having a luxurious lifestyle and is also the owner of an orchard; (iii) As per the appellant/husband, his take home salary is Rs.1,14,000/- per month, after deduction, out of gross salary of Rs.2,26,416; (iv) The husband is already paying maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. (v) The official accommodation provided to the appellant/husband was three bedrooms house as averred by the respondent/wife in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 2 of 6 the writ petition, which was filed before this Court and also finds mentioned in para 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2017, which has attained finality. Sample copies of lease deeds have been placed on record by the appellant/husband to show that the prevailing rent in and around Dwarka is Rs.25,000/- per month. (vi) The appellant/husband has to maintain himself, his son and his old mother. He is also paying instalments for a property in Ghaziabad in the joint name alongwith his wife.

5. Almost identical arguments have been raised before us today by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband has highlighted the fact that the present accommodation provided in terms of the lease deed is conspicuously absent and thus the lease deed sought to be relied upon is suspicious in nature. Counsel further submits that the Family Court has failed to take into account the liabilities of the appellant/husband including the payment of Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter. It has also been contended that merely because the parties were jointly residing in a government accommodation, which had three bedrooms or five bedrooms as submitted by the respondent/wife cannot be a ground for granting an accommodation of five rooms to the wife, for two people, post their separation and unnecessarily the appellant/husband would be burdened with extra rent. It is the contention of counsel for the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife is residing with a 10 years MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 3 of 6 old daughter and a two-bedroom set accommodation would be sufficient for their stay.

7. The counsel for the appellant/husband also submitted that at present, the appellant/husband has been transferred to Ranchi where he has been provided with a 3 bedrooms accommodation and in case the parties were residing together, the respondent/wife would be entitled to a similar accommodation.

8. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant/husband have been rebutted by the counsel for the respondent/wife, who submits that the appellant/husband has no liabilities; the son out of first marriage is a major and is independent. The mother of the appellant/husband is also self-sufficient. Moreover, in addition to the salary, the appellant enjoys many perks being a senior army officer.

9. According to the respondent/wife, the parties were jointly residing in a Govt. accommodation comprising of 5 bedrooms. It is submitted that in the order passed by the learned Single Judge inadvertently a three- bedroom accommodation has been mentioned. Counsel for the respondent/wife has also submitted that the respondent is entitled to live in the same status as that of her husband and enjoy the same facility, which she did prior to her separation. The respondent has also highlighted the fact that the actual rent being paid is for a three- bedroom house as the 4th bedroom has been put under a lock by the owner.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the order passed by the Family Court and have also considered their rival submissions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 4 of 6 11. Today, we have been informed that the appellant/husband is residing in an accommodation of three-bedroom. Even assuming that when the parties were residing together, the accommodation provided to the appellant/husband was a five-bedroom accommodation in Delhi, we are of the view that the accommodation provided at the time when the parties were residing together cannot be a benchmark alone to be considered while providing the accommodation to the respondent/wife and her 10 years old daughter. Copies of various rent deeds have been placed on record, which show that the rent of a three-bedroom house is to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month in and around Dwarka area, where the wife is residing. Taking into consideration the facts of the given case, we are of the considered view that the respondent/wife is entitled to a three-bedroom accommodation in the area where the rent is approximately Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellant/husband has agreed to offer and provide a three-bedroom accommodation in and around Dwarka to the respondent/wife within a period of one month, as sought by the counsel for the appellant/ husband, on the ground that the appellant is posted out of Delhi. The proposal shall be placed before the Family Court and the order dated 06.06.2018 is modified to the extent that instead of rent of Rs.42,000/- per month, the appellant/husband will provide a three-bedroom accommodation in Dwarka within a radius of 5 K.M., as agreed, with the similar amenities and facilities as in the existing accommodation.

12. In above terms, the appeal stands disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 5 of 6 CM.APPL449632018 (stay) 13. In view of the order passed in the appeal, the application stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J.

JYOTI SINGH, J.

DECEMBER20 2018/ck MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2018 Page 6 of 6