Reema Salkan vs Sumer Singh Salkan

3. There   is   a   chequered   history   of   litigation   between   the parties.   Shorn   of   unnecessary   details,   the   relevant   facts   for determination of the present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 24th March, 2002, according to Hindu   rites   and   ceremonies   at   Infantry   Hostel,   Delhi Cantonment,   Delhi.   The   respondent,   being   a   permanent resident of Canada, had assured the appellant that he would take her with him to Canada on 28 th March, 2002 on a Tourist Visa.  However, soon after the marriage, relations between the appellant   and   the   respondent   became   strained.   The respondent, being a permanent resident of Canada, returned to   Canada   without   making   any   arrangements   to   take   the 3 appellant   to   Canada   even   on   a   Tourist   Visa,   as   assured. Rather, he caused impediments in issuance of the Tourist Visa to   the   appellant,   by   giving   an   application   in   writing   in   that behalf to the Canadian Immigration Department. As relations between   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   became   strained, the appellant filed a complaint before the Women Cell against the respondent and her in­laws. On 16 th July, 2003, she also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure   for   grant   of   maintenance   of   Rs.2   lakh   per   month from the respondent before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.     Be   it   noted   that   during   the   pendency   of   the   said application,   interim   maintenance   amount   was   fixed,   which issue   travelled   upto   this   Court   by   way   of   Criminal   Appeal Nos.2347­2349/2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 28th  October,   2014   on   the   finding   that   the   cause   of   justice would   be   subserved   if   the   appellant   was   granted   a   sum   of Rs.20,000/­ per month as interim maintenance commencing from November 1, 2014. However, for the   reasons stated by the  Family  Court  in its judgment dated 28 th  January, 2015, 4 the   final   maintenance   amount   was   fixed  at   Rs.10,000/­   per month  starting  from 17th  July, 2003 till 8th  December, 2010 and   no   maintenance   was   granted   with   effect   from   8 th December,   2010.     The   application   for   maintenance,   filed   in 2003,   was   finally   disposed   of   on   28 th  January,   2015   in   the following terms:

4. Against   this   decision,   the   appellant   filed   a   revision petition   before   the   High   Court   being   Revision   Petition 5 (Criminal) No.204 of 2015, which has been partly allowed on the following terms:

The respondent shall clear off the arrears of maintenance if any,   within   three   months   from   the   date   of   order.   Any payment   made   towards   interim   maintenance   during   the pendency of the present petition and any maintenance paid for   the  concurrent  period,  as  per   the order  passed   by  any other   competent   court   in   any   other   proceeding/litigation between   the   parties,   the   money   already   deposited   by   the orders   of   the   Superior   Courts   or   by   the   order   of   the predecessor   of   this   court,   by   the   respondent   shall   be adjusted, if required. No orders as to costs. File be consigned to record­room.”

(emphasis applied)

15. 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, in our opinion, is untenable. We are of the considered opinion that regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent 17 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   has   been   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 this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2347­2349/2014 has   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, we are inclined to direct that 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. We order accordingly.

16. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the enhanced maintenance amount, as determined in terms of this order, to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from today after duly adjusting the amount already deposited in Court/paid to the   appellant   till   date.   The   appellant   will   be   entitled   to forthwith withdraw the maintenance amount deposited by the respondent   in   Court,  if  any.   The  impugned   judgment   of  the High   Court   is   accordingly   modified   in   the   aforementioned terms.

17. The appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

.………………………….CJI.

September 25, 2018.