SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Farooq Ahmad Shala vs Marie Chanel Gillier on 2 August, 2018

                   NEW DELHI
CNR NO. DLSE01­007800­2017
CA NO. 421/17

Farooq Ahmad Shala,
S/o Abdul Gaffar Shalla,
R/o House No. 58/1, Jangpura, 
Bhogal, New Delhi – 110014.        ………. Appellant


Marie Chanel Gillier, 
W/o Farooq Ahmad Shala, 
R/o A2/154, Safdarjung Enclave, 
New Delhi.                          ………. Respondent


1. This   order   shall   dispose   of   an   appeal   preferred   by   the
appellant husband under Section 29 of the Protection of Women
from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005   (“the   Act”)   praying   that   the
interim   order   dated   14.09.2017   (“Impugned   Order”)   passed   by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate – 02 (Mahila Court), South East
District, Saket, New Delhi, granting interim maintenance in sum of
₹60,000/­  (Rupees Sixty thousand)  under Section 23 of the Act  to

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  1 of 30
the respondent wife be set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant husband is
a Mohammedan and the respondent wife is a French national. The
nikah  ceremony   between   the   appellant   husband   and   the
respondent wife was held on 28.11.2004. The parties also got their
marriage registered on 28.04.2006 under the Special Marriage Act,
1954   vide   certificate   dated   30.05.2006.   From   their   wedlock   the
parties   have   two   daughters.   The   appellant   husband   from   his
previous marriage has two daughters. For the sake of clarity, the
particulars of the children are as under:


S. Name Relevant Particulars Age   Custody Status

1. Faran Shala Daughter 18yrs. Though an adult and now
(from previous marriage of residing with the Father.


2. Alima Shala Daughter 13yrs. Mother
(from previous marriage of
3. Ines Mariam Daughter 11yrs. Mother
(from subsisting marriage of
the parties).
4. Jasmine Kajol Daughter 9yrs. Mother
(from subsisting marriage of
the parties)

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  2 of 30

3. The undisputed facts are that the parties are husband
and wife and further the parentage of the children mentioned in
Table   1.1   of   the   preceding   paragraph   is   unchallenged.   The
respondent   wife   and   the   appellant   husband   have   been   living
separately since March 2015. Subsequent to their separation, the
respondent wife had the custody of all the four daughters until the
eldest   daughter  namely, Faran  Shala  (presently an  adult) of her
own volition and choice moved out of the house of the respondent
wife and started to reside with her father i.e. appellant herein. One
vital undisputed fact between the parties is that at the time of the
filing   of   the   application   under   Section   12   of   the   Act   by   the
respondent wife and reply thereto by the appellant husband, the
parties   were   residing   at   109,   Ground   Floor,   Pocket   –   1,   Jasola
Vihar, New Delhi. Thus, the shared household for the respondent
wife at the time of filing of the application under Section 12 of the
Act was 109, Ground Floor, Pocket – 1, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi.

4. The  respondent wife in her application under Section
12 of the Act, has alleged that regardless of parenting and rearing
two   daughters   of   the   appellant   husband   from   his   previous
marriage,   on   birth   of   a   daughter   Ines   Maryam,   the   appellant
husband started to taunt the respondent wife for giving birth to a
girl child. The respondent wife in her complaint further alleged that
prior to the birth of her second daughter from her wedlock with the

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  3 of 30
appellant husband, the appellant caused trauma and agony to the
respondent by hitting her, abusing her on several occasions. For the
sake   of   clarity   about   the   names   and   the   custody   status   of   the
children, the Table 1.1 in the paragraph no. 2 be referred. 

5. The respondent wife with regard to the alleged acts of
violence, cruelty lodged complaints with the police station – Sarita
Vihar on 22.04.2012, 12.12.2014 and 15.01.2015. The respondent
wife in her application has alleged that the appellant husband has
no control over his temper and is abusive and violent.

6. To the contrary, the appellant husband in his reply has
alleged that the respondent wife suffers from epilepsy and mental
disorder  viz.,  delusional   psychosis   schizophrenia   on   account   of
which she turns aggressive and violent.

7. On perusal of the record of the Court of first instance,
this Court observes that it is relevant and imperative to highlight
what transpired before the lower Court. The procedure adopted by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on filing of an application under
Section   12   of   the   Act   by   the   respondent   wife   was   that   on
21.01.2015   notice   was   issued   to   the   appellant   herein.   The
respondent   wife   was   directed   to   file   an   affidavit   of   income   and
expenditure in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Puneet Kaur Vs Inderjeet Singh Sawhney 2011 (183) DLT

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  4 of 30

403.  Thereafter,   the   respondent   filed   his   appearance   before   the
Court   of   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   on   28.01.2015.   The
respondent wife filed her income affidavit on 31.01.2015 and the
parties expressed a possibility of amicable settlement.

8. On   25.02.2015,   the   respondent   wife   preferred   an
application under Section 23 of the Act seeking urgent orders from
the   Court   of  Ld.   Metropolitan  Magistrate  on  the  ground  that  on
23.02.2015   she   was  thrown   out  of  the   shared  household  by  the
appellant husband and she had no place to reside and was staying
at a Hotel.

9. Though   after  a couple  of  adjournments, the  status  of
failure of settlement talks between the parties is reflected in the
order dated 23.04.2015, but on the Court record a joint application
dated 02.03.2015 along with the settlement deed dated 28.02.2015
entered   between   the   parties   and   requesting   the   Court   of   Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate to take the same on record, as the parties
have compromised their matter.

10. That   on   20.01.2016   the   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate
directed   both   the   parties   to   file   their   affidavits   of   income   and
expenditure, as per the prescribed format and directions passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in  Kusum Sharma v Mahinder
Sharma – FAO No. 369/1996 judgment dated 14.01.2015. 

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  5 of 30
Reply   filed   by   respondent   to   application   for
complainant seeking restraint Orders. 

Adjournment requested by counsel for respondent on
the ground that he is in personal difficulty and he has to rush to
the Hon’ble High Court. 

The   respondent   is   restraint   from   communicating
with   the   complainant   or   their   three   children   namely   Ines   ad
Jasmine   who   are   in   the   custody   of   the   complainant   without
obtaining permission from the competent Court. 

He is further restraint from visiting the residence of
the complainant at House No. A2/154, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi or her office at 235, Satya Niketan, New Delhi till further
Order in this regard. 

Both parties are directed to file their affidavits of
income and expenditure as per the prescribed format in ‘Annexure
A’ of the Judgment in the case of ‘Kusum Sharma Vs Mahender’
decided on 14.01.2015 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 

Any omission to file the affidavit or failure to file
the   same   in   the   prescribed   format   or   any   deviation   from   the
prescribed   format   shall   be   viewed   seriously   and   may   result   in
imposition of heavy costs on the defaulting party and the version
of opposite party be deemed correct for the purpose of decision of
application for interim relief. 

Put up for arguments on the application for interim
relief on 28.03.2016. 

Copy of the Order be given dasti. 

11. Both the parties in compliance of aforesaid order dated
20.01.2016 filed their affidavit of income on 28.03.2016. 

12. The appellant husband is aggrieved by the quantum of
interim maintenance of ₹60,000/­  (Rupees Sixty thousand) awarded

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  6 of 30
by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to the respondent wife and has
accordingly challenged the impugned order.

13. The   main   plank   of   the   appellant’s   challenge   to   the
impugned order is that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate failed to
make an assessment of the respondent wife’s income. The appellant
contends   that   the   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   has   incorrectly
assessed the appellant’s income and has furnished no reasons for
the   assessment.   The   appellant     husband   has  also   challenged   the
impugned   order   on   the   ground   that   respondent   wife   does   not
require any maintenance as the respondent is well qualified, earns
more than sufficient income and has suppressed her true income.

14. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 was enacted on 13th September, 2005 and came into force on
26th October, 2006. The Statement Objects and Reasons of the Act
record   that   the   civil   law   does   not   address   the   phenomenon   of
domestic   violence   and   therefore,   a   law   be   enacted   to   provide   a
remedy in civil law for protection of women from being victims of
domestic violence.

15. The   civil   rights   under   the   Act   are   culled   under   the
provisions of Section 17 to 23, which are as under:

• Right to reside in a shared household under Section 17.

• Protection orders under Section 18.
• Residence orders under Section 19.

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  7 of 30
• Monetary reliefs under Section 20.
• Custody orders under Section 21.
• Compensation orders under Section 22.
• Interim orders under Section 23.

16. Section 12 of the Act empowers an aggrieved person to
approach the Magistrate to seek any of the reliefs mentioned under
Section 17 to 23 of the Act.

17. It is no longer res integra as to what procedure is to be
followed   by   the   Court   while   disposal   of   an   application   under
Section 12 of the Act. Our Hon’ble High Court in the case of S Vs. J

–   CM   Main   No.   750/2017   decided   on   17.04.2018  held   that   the
Court   can   formulate   its   own   procedure   for   disposal   of   an
application   under   Section   12   of   the   Act   and   it   is   not   bound   to
follow the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

18. Hon’ble Mr. Justice, J.R. Midha, J. in the case of S Vs. J
(supra) held that Section 36 of the Act provides that the provisions
of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law,
which means that in addition to the Act, various other provisions
under the general laws as well as specific statutes can be invoked
by the aggrieved person. 

19. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in reference to Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the case of  Bharat Hegde Vs

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  8 of 30
Saroj   Hegde   –  2007   (140)   DLT   16  observed   that   the   right   to
maintenance   is   an   incident   of   the   status   from   an   estate   of
matrimony. Hon’ble High Court  observed, as under:

“6. While considering a claim for interim maintenance,
the court has to keep in mind the status of the parties, reasonable
wants of the applicant, the income and property of the applicant.
Conversely,   requirements   of   the   non   applicant,   the   income   and
property of the non applicant and additionally the other family
members to be maintained by the non applicant have to be taken
into all. Whilst it is important to insure that the maintenance
awarded to the applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant to
live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as in the matrimonial
home, but it should not be so exorbitant that the non applicant is
unable to pay.

7.  … … … 

8.   Unfortunately,   in   India,   parties   do   not
truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons
employed   in   the   unorganized   sector,   truthful   income   never
surfaces.   Tax   avoidance   is   the   norm.   Tax   compliance   is   the
exception   in   this   country.   Therefore,   in   determining   interim
maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court
has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents,
the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken
into consideration while deciding an application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act. … …”

20. Hon’ble   High   Court   in  Bharat   Hegde’s   case  (supra)
culled   out   11(eleven)   factors,   which   are   to   be   taken   into
consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  9 of 30

21.  With surge in the disputes relating to marriage, family
affairs and enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence, 2005, to protect the rights of women who are victims of
violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto, our Hon’ble High Court
painstakingly   evolved  over  period  of  time  guidelines and certain
good   practices   to   determine   the   true   income   of   the   parties   by
applying the settled legal principles. Though the 11(eleven) factors
were culled out in Bharat Hegde’s case but the torchbearer case on
this   issue   is  Kusum   Sharma   v   Mahinder   Sharma  –   FAO   No.
369/1996.   Hon’ble   High   Court   has   from   time   to   time   passed
guidelines   and   directions   vide   judgment   dated   14.01.2015,
29.05.2017   and   the   latest   one   being   vide   judgment   dated

22. The Hon’ble High Court in Kusum Sharma v Mahinder
Sharma  –   FAO   No.   369/1996   judgment   dated   14.01.2015   laid
down   the   guidelines   for   expeditious   hearing   and   disposal   of
maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act,   1955.   The   Hon’ble   High   Court   considered   the   best
international practices with respect of the mandatory filing of an
affidavit of assets, income and expenditure by both the parties in
matrimonial   disputes  and accordingly,  formulated an  affidavit   of

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  10 of 30
assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both the parties.

23. Further,   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   directed   that   the
procedure   culled   out   is   to   be   followed   in   all   cases   relating   to
maintenance   including   cases   under   Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955,
Protection   of   Women   from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005,   Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Special Marriage Act, 1954
Indian Divorce Act, 1869, as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973.

24. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the filing of the
affidavits by the parties is not reduced to a mere ritual or formality.
The Court shall scrutinize the affidavit threadbare to determine the
true income of the parties by applying the principles laid down in
Sections 106 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with
Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 

25. The   affidavit   of   income   and   expenditure   dated
28.03.2016   filed   by   the   respondent   wife   is   substantiated   by
supporting documents, as under:

a.  bank statements of HDFC A/c No. 0923XXXX2063 for the 
period 01.04.2013 to 17.03.2016;

b.  income tax return (ITR­2) for the A.Y. 2014­15, A.Y.2015­

c.  Form 23AC along with balance sheet of Peacock Tours Pvt.


d.  documents relating to children’ school and tuition fees; 
e.  rent agreement dated 23.02.2015 for the property bearing 
No. A­2/154, ground floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  11 of 30

– 110029;

f.        telephone bill; 
g.  water bill; 
h.  electricity bill, and 
i.  life insurance policies. 

26. The   affidavit   filed   by   the   respondent   wife   is   a   very
detailed   one   and   has   full   disclosure   about   personal   information;
information   relating   to   spouse,   children;   statement   of   income,
expenditure,   assets;   joint   properties   of   the   parties;   statement   of
liabilities and information relating to the status, standard of living
and lifestyle lead by the respondent wife and children.

27. The   affidavit   of   income   and   expenditure   dated
23.03.2016   filed   by   the   appellant   husband   is   substantiated   by
supporting documents, as under:

a.        Aadhaar card;
b. PAN card;
c. Passport;
d. bank statement of HDFC A/c No. 0923XXXX0326 for the 
period 27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016;
e. bank   statement   of   HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0336   (A/c  

Holder   Ms.   Alima   Shala   U/G   Farooq   A.   Shala)   for   the  
period 27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016;

f. bank   statement   of   HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0319   (A/c  
Holder   Ms.   Fran   Shala   U/G   Farooq   A.   Shala)   for   the  
period 27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016;

g. bank   statement   of   HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0353   (A/c  
Holder Ms. Jasmine Kajol Shala U/G Farooq A. Shala) for 
the period 27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016;  

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  12 of 30
h. bank   statement   of   HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0343   (A/c  
Holder Ms. Ines Mariam Shala U/G Farooq A. Shala) for 
the period 01.04.2015 to 01.01.2016 and  
i. bank   statement   of   HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0343   (A/c  
Holder Ms. Ines Mariam Shala U/G Farooq A. Shala) for 
5the period 27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016.  

28. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order,
after carefully going through the material available on record and
income affidavits of both parties rightfully held that the appellant
herein has though declared himself to be residing at Bhogal with
his nephew Imran Latha along with his eldest daughter Faran Shala
and   the   appellant   has   also   denied   of   having   any   business   of
houseboats in the state of Jammu  Kashmir. The Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate   has   also   held   in   the   order   that   though   the   appellant
herein remains to be a pauper and did not think of engaging legal
aid counsel from the State and chose to be defended by a private
counsel.   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   in   the   impugned   order   has
observed that the record pertaining to the bank account statement
placed on record by the appellant husband shows the withdrawal of
amount of Rs.3 lacs and also deposit of some amount on different
occasions in the name of "Self", yet he is unable to maintain himself
and   not   in   a   position   to   maintain   his   wife   or   his   children.   Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order has observed that
the appellant husband denies driving a Scorpio Car and also denied
of   having   any   credit   card   in   his   name.   Though   the   appellant

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  13 of 30
husband in his affidavit has failed to make any disclosure about the
ownership of any motor vehicle Make - Mahindra, Model - Scorpio
year 2007 bearing registration no. DL­3C­AS­1561. This very fact
has been brought before this Court by the respondent wife during
the course of arguments. 

29. Interestingly, the appellant  husband claims himself to
be a pauper and man of no means yet the bank statement placed by
him on record reveals inflow and outflow of money to be that of an
amount   more   than   adequate   financial   resources   and   status.
Further,   the   bank   statement   placed   on   record   by   the   appellant
husband himself portrays substantial amount of money inflowing
and   outflowing   from   various   bank   accounts   (bank   statement
annexed   with   the   affidavit   of   income   and   expenditure   dated
23.03.2016),   yet   he   has   not   placed   a   single   Income   Tax   Return
with   regard   to   the   relevant   period   co­relating   to   the   period   of
which   bank   statements   have   been   placed   on   record.   This   Court
observes   that   non­filing   of   Income   Tax   Return   by   the   appellant
husband has been done intentionally and with full knowledge to
suppress his true income, expenditure, assets and liabilities. Thus, it
does not lie in the mouth of the appellant husband to urge that the
Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   in   the   impugned   order   failed   to
correctly assess the income of the respondent wife. On the other
hand, the respondent wife has filed the detailed affidavit of income

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  14 of 30
and expenditure dated 28.03.2016 along with relevant supporting

30. The   respondent   wife   has   averred   in   her   application
under Section 12 of the Act and also disclosed in her affidavit of
income and expenditure that she is working as director of Peacock
Tours   Pvt.   Ltd.   and   was   withdrawing   salary   of   Rs.80,000/­   per
month, whereas the appellant husband in his affidavit of income
and expenditure has disclosed that in the financial year 2012­13
and 2013­14 he was the Director in the Company Peacock Tours
Pvt. Ltd. and was withdrawing salary to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/­
and Rs.8,40,000/­ respectively. Further, the appellant husband in
his  own   affidavit   of  income  and expenditure  has stated  that  the
income   tax   paid   by   him   in   the   financial   year   2012­13   was
Rs.90,570/­ and in the financial year 2013­14 the income tax paid
by him was Rs.2,45,542/­. This Court on careful examination of the
affidavit of income and expenditure, assets and liabilities filed by
the appellant husband observes that though the appellant claims
paying income tax but has not placed any Income Tax Return on
record.   Further   the   appellant   husband   has   not   provided   any
information under Part - IV Statement of Income with regard to
financial year 2014­15.

31. Another   interesting   fact,   which   has   come   before   this
Court is, even though the appellant husband claims to be a pauper

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  15 of 30
as pointed out in the preceding paragraph that he had no income in
the financial year 2014­15 yet in the year 2017 on 27.02.2017, as a
Promoter   Director   incorporated   a   company   by   the   name   of
MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd. whose total authorized share capital was Rs.5
lacs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs.10 each. Out of the
authorized share capital of Rs.5 lacs Rs.3 lacs had been paid up
capital   by   total   shares   of   30,000   of   Rs.10   each   and   out   of   the
30,000 shares the appellant husband holds 15000 equity shares of

32. On   perusal   of   Memorandum   of   Association   of   the
Company MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd., the objectives of the company inter­
alia  are to take over existing proprietorship firm in the name of
MOVINDIA run by one of the promoter of the proposed company
with   it's   all   assets   and   liabilities.   The   proprietorship   firm
"MOVINDIA"   shall   cease   to   exist   after   take   over.   To   carry   on
business of tours and travels, tourist agents and contractors, and to
facilitate   travelling   and   to   provide   for   tourist   and   travelers,   or
promote the provisions of convenience of all kinds in the way of
through   tickets,   circular   tickets,   sleeping   car   of   berths,   reserved
places, hotels and/or boarding and/or lodging accommodation and
guides,   resting   rooms,   baggage   transport   and   otherwise   and   to
charter   steamships   and   aeroplanes   for   fixed   periods   or   for
particular   voyages   and   flights   and   to   carry   on   the   business   of

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  16 of 30
booking of packet, envelopes, cargoes and luggage of the public in
general and of Company's constituents in particular with every type
of carrier, in particular with airlines steamships lines, railways and
road carriers in India and/or abroad and also provide services in
money   exchanger.   This   document   placed   on   record   reveals   two
aspects, firstly, business being run in the name of proprietorship of
MOVINDIA   and   the   same   being   subsumed   by   a   newly   formed
business entity i.e. by incorporation of a company MOVINDIA Pvt.
Ltd. Secondly, the extent to which the appellant husband has gone
to   hide   his   business   transactions   and   on   apprehension   of   being
exposed he resigned from this newly incorporated business entity
of MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd. and appointed his daughter Faran Shala as
director. Such conduct of the appellant husband forces this Court to
pierce the corporate veil and see through that this all is nothing but
smokescreen with the sole purpose of the same to suppress material
information   and   deprive   his   lawfully   wedded   wife   and   children
from   providing   adequate   financial   resources   and   shirk   his   legal,
social   and   moral   duty   of   maintaining   his   children   and   lawfully
wedded wife.

33. The respondent wife along with her written arguments
placed   relevant   documents   pertaining   to   appellant   husband's
shareholding   in   the   MOVINDIA   Pvt.   Ltd.   Further,   the   appellant
husband's resignation from the directorship of MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd.

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  17 of 30
on 17.11.2017 and day prior to that the appellant husband's eldest
daughter   namely   Faran   Shala   being   appointed   as   director   of
MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd. It is observed that Ms. Faran Shala turned of
an adult age of 18 years only on 24.10.2017.

34. The   appellant   husband   not   only   in   reply   to   the
application under Section 12 of the Act but also in his affidavit of
income   and   expenditure   dated   23.03.2016   has   stated   that   he
resides with his nephew Imran Latha at Bhogal. On perusal of the
record reveals that the office address of MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd. is 103,
Pocket - III, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi - 110025. It is not disputed
between the parties that they jointly entered into an agreement to
purchase property bearing no. 103, Pocket - III, Jasola Vihar, New
Delhi   -   110025   vide   agreement   to   sell   and   an   amount   of   Rs.3
crores had been paid to Skylink Construction Pvt. Ltd. Though the
appellant   husband   claims   to   have   no   source   of   income   and   has
averred that balance amount of the sale consideration was yet to be
paid to Skylink Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the affidavit of income
and   expenditure   of   the   appellant   husband   discloses   no   data
available with regard to his income in the financial year 2014­15.
To the contrary from the bank statements placed on record by the
appellant husband himself it is revealed that in the financial year
2014­15, he had been receiving salary from Peacock Tours Pvt. Ltd.
for   an   amount   of   Rs.60,000   -   Rs.65,000/­   on   05.05.2014,

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  18 of 30
03.06.2014,   04.07.2014,   07.08.2014,   06.09.2014,   04.10.2014,
07.11.2014, 06.12.2014, 31.12.2014, 06.02.2015 and 07.03.2015.
The appellant husband was also running his business operation of
MOVINDIA Pvt. Ltd. from the office address i.e. Basement of 103,
Pocket   -   III,   Jasola   Vihar,   New   Delhi   -   110025.     Further,   the
appellant husband during the financial year 2014­15 from the very
same   bank   account   had   been   making   payments   to   M/s   Skylink
Construction Pvt. Ltd. and making various other payments, thus it
is   evident   that   appellant   husband   has   deposed   falsely   in   his
affidavit   of   income   and   expenditure.   The   bank   statement   of   the
appellant relating to bank account no. 0923XXXX0326 also reveals
that   the   appellant   husband   had   been   making   payment   via   debit
card to an entity "Touch  Feel", "Bookmyshow", "Amazon Seller".
Thus, it is evident that appellant husband has not been forthcoming
with regard to his income, expenditure, assets and liabilities and his
affidavit dated 23.03.2016 is false.

35. The   appellant   husband   has   placed   on   record   bank
statement   of   "HDFC   A/c   No.   0923XXXX0353   (A/c   Holder   Ms.
Jasmine   Kajol   Shala   U/G   Farooq   A.   Shala)   for   the   period
27.12.2011 to 01.01.2016". This bank account purports to be in the
name  of  daughter  of  the  appellant husband namely Alima Shala
from   his   previous   marriage.   The   respondent   wife   had   filed   an
application under Section 12 of the Act on 20.01.2015 and during

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  19 of 30
that   period   only   on   19.03.2015   the   said   bank   account   had   a
balance   of   Rs.25,01,870.07/­.   Interestingly,   on   20.03.2015   an
amount of Rs.25 lacs is paid by way of cheque as inward transfer in
the name of Farooq Ahmed Shala. On the one hand, the appellant
husband   in   his   affidavit   he   has   stated   that   he   has   no   source   of
income or money at his disposal during the financial year 2014­15
"Data Not Available", but this transfer of money of Rs.25 lacs in the
name of appellant husband corroborates a very fact that pursuant
to the filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act by the
respondent wife, the appellant had sole motive to divert his funds
and also suppress his source of income and assets and thus there is
apparent   suppression   of   material   information   and   documents   on
the part of the appellant husband.

36. The appellant husband in his own affidavit has stated
that he is not providing any financial assistance to the respondent
wife with regard to his own children. This Court has not lost sight
to the fact that it is the respondent wife who has been raising and
providing not only for her biological children with the appellant but
also for the children of the appellant respondent from his previous
marriage. The appellant has urged that he is unemployed and thus
unable to bear all his expenses for food, stay, litigation, care of his
daughter Faran Shala which are paid by his nephew Imran Latha.
The appellant has also urged that along with his eldest daughter,

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  20 of 30
the appellant husband is residing at Bhogal in an accommodation
rented   by   his  nephew  Imran  Latha.  The   affidavit   of  income  and
expenditure   dated   23.03.2016   is  totally   silent   about   the   amount
and nature of expenses incurred by his nephew on the appellant
and his eldest daughter. It appears that the appellant husband is
not forthcoming about his disclosure of income, expenses for the
reason best known to him but the said conduct and suppression on
the part of the appellant husband yet attracts an adverse inference.
This Court on careful perusal and examination of bank statements
filed by the appellant observes that the appellant husband is a man
of good means, more than resources and had plenty of money at his
disposal   and   circulating   in   his   various   bank   accounts   within   his
control and power.

37. The parties were directed to file their written arguments
subsequent   to  the   conclusion  of  oral  arguments.  The   respondent
wife filed her written arguments on 16.07.2018 and the appellant
husband filed his written arguments on 23.07.2018.

38. The Counsel for the appellant husband at length argued
that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate failed to assess the respondent
wife's   income.   To   the   contrary   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   has
assessed the appellant husband monthly income to be Rs.2 lacs and
thus directed the appellant husband to pay Rs.60,000/­ per month
as interim maintenance to the respondent wife. The counsel for the

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  21 of 30
appellant husband has vehemently argued that there is no basis for
giving   an   interim   maintenance   of   Rs.60,000/­   per   month   to
respondent wife, as she is well qualified woman and earning more
than sufficient income. This Court stresses upon the legal, social
and moral duty of the respondent to maintain his lawfully wedded
wife and children. Keeping in mind that the affidavit of income and
expenditure filed by the appellant husband is not true and correct
and the same was filed with the sole motive to not only suppress
his   true   and   correct   income   but   also   to   deprive   his   wife   and
children   from   any   financial   and   monetary   assistance   which   any
dutiful father/husband would provide for. 

39. The Counsel for the appellant husband in this appeal
has   challenged   the   impugned   order   on   the   ground   that   Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate erred by holding his monthly income to be
Rs.2   lacs   per   month.   The   counsel   for   the   respondent   wife   has
drawn attention of this court to a MoU dated 28.02.2015, wherein
the   appellant  husband had himself agreed to give  an amount  of
Rs.2 lacs per month starting from 01.03.2015 uptil 01.08.2015. On
perusal of the record of Court of first instance, this Court observes
from the copy of order dated 03.04.2018 passed by Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in case of "Peacock Tours Pvt. Ltd.  Anr. Vs. Farooq
Ahmed Shala  Ors." CCP (CO.) 2/2017 wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has issued Show Cause Notice to respondent no. 1 as

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  22 of 30
to   why   he   should   not   be   held   guilty   of   contempt   of   court.   The
Hon'ble   High   Court   has observed  that   the   parties have   moved  a
joint   application   before   the   Magistrate,   Saket   for   taking   a
settlement dated 28.02.2015. It is the very same MoU wherein the
appellant husband had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2 lacs per
month starting from 01.03.2015 uptil 01.08.2015 and further pay
an amount of Rs.38,00,000/­ as compensation to respondent wife
on or before 01.09.2015. On the one hand the appellant husband in
his affidavit of income deposed that he has no source and means to
provide his lawfully wedded wife and children and on the other
hand the appellant husband out of his own volition had entered
into the MoU dated 28.02.2015 with the respondent wife.

40. The Court has left with no other option but to conclude
that the appellant husband is a man of adequate financial resources
and   status.   Subsequent   to   the   arguments   by   the   counsel   for   the
parties,   the   counsel   for appellant  husband had  placed  on   record
judgments and has strongly relied upon the judgment passed by the
Apex   Court   in   "Bhagwan   Dutt   Vs.   Kamla   Devi     Ors.,   (1975)2
SCC386" and "Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmir Parmar, (2011)13

41. The Apex Court in Catina of judgments has held that
Courts   should   not   blindly   follow   the   judgments   passed   by   the
Superior Courts. Each case has to be decided in the light of its own

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  23 of 30
facts   and   circumstances.   Courts   should   not   place   reliance   on
decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in
with  the  facts and situation of the decision  on  which reliance  is
placed. All observations of the Courts are not to be read as Euclid's
Theorem  to the provisions of the statute. These observations must
be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Court
are not to be construed as statutes to interpret words, phrases and
provisions   of   statutes.   It   may   become   necessary   for   Judges   to
embark upon legal discussion but the discussion is means to explain
and   not   to   defend.   Circumstantial   flexibility,   one   additional   or
different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions
in   two   cases.   Disposal   of   cases   by   blindly   placing   reliance   on   a
decision is not proper. Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdama
Oil Mills (2002) 3SCC 496. 

42. In   "Bhagwan   Dutt   Vs.   Kamla   Devi     Ors.,   (1975)2
SCC386", the legal principle culled out by the Apex Court while
deciding the amount of maintenance payable to wife under Section
488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is as under:

"19. The object of these provisions being to prevent
vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to
what   is  required   by  the  wife  to maintain  a standard  of living
which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modesty consistent
with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the
wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her
separate   income,   also,   is   taken   into   account   together   with   the

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  24 of 30
earnings of the husband and his commitments."

43. It   appears   that   the   impugned   order   passed   by   Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate has given due weightage to the needs and
requirements of the wife along with her children for such moderate
living by also considering her separate income. A distinguishable
fact which this Court cannot lose sight of is, the parties have four
children out of which two from previous marriage of the appellant
husband   and   two   from   the   marriage   between   the   appellant
husband and the  respondent wife. The respondent  wife is single
handedly raising the children, regardless of the fact, they also being
children from the previous marriage of the appellant husband. The
reliance placed by counsel for the appellant husband that the Ld.
Metropolitan   Magistrate   had   passed   the   impugned   order   in
contravention   of   the   aforesaid   legal   principle   is   misplaced   and
rejected. However, this Court observes that impugned order of Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate has not failed adhere to the aforesaid legal
principle.   Thus,   the   reliance   placed   by   counsel   for   the   appellant
husband does not aid the case of the appellant husband.

44. In   the   case   of   "Vinny   Parmvir   Parmar   Vs.   Parmir
Parmar, (2011)13 SCC112", the point of consideration before the
Court   was,   what   amount   would   be   the   reasonable   amount   that
appellant wife is entitled by way of maintenance from the husband
in terms of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts of

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  25 of 30
the case are quite distinguishable from the present case. In "Vinny
Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmir Parmar", the appellant wife was an air
hostess in Cathay Pacific Airlines and resigned from the post as air
hostess   after   marriage   at   the   instance   of   respondent   husband.
Whereas   the   respondent   was   a   Senior   Commander   in   Air   India
whose   monthly   income   by   the   Family   Court   was   determined   as
Rs.1,40,000/­ per month and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble
High   Court   of   Bombay.   The   Family   Court   fixed   the   wife's
permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/­ per month and same was upheld
by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.

45. This Court observes that the holding of "Vinny Parmvir
Parmar Vs. Parmir Parmar" goes against the appellant husband, as
the Apex Court in paragraph 12 of it judgment held that :

"12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim
for   permanent   alimony   and   maintenance   of   either   spouse,   the
Respondent's own income and other property, and the income and
other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition
to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It
is further seen that the court considering such claim has to consider
all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is
to be just for living standard.  No fixed formula can be laid for
fixing the amount of maintenance.  It has to be in the nature of
things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each
case.  The   court   has   to   consider   the  status   of   the  parties,   their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard
to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom
he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The Courts

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  26 of 30
also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance
fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable
comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live
when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so
fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other
party. These are all the broad principles courts have to be kept in
mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony."

46. The Apex Court in  "Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs. Parmir
Parmar"   enhanced   the   permanent   alimony/maintenance   from
Rs.20,000/­ to Rs. 40,000/­. The reliance placed by counsel for the
appellant husband does not further his cause as the judgment relied
upon   is   distinguishable   not   only   on   facts   but   also   the   appellant
husband has suppressed material facts and information from the
Court of first instance.

47. It is settled position in law that the affidavit of assets,
income and expenditure of both the parties is useful to determine
the   income   of   the   parties  in  all matrimonial  cases. Applying the
principles   laid   down   in   Section   10(3)   of   the   Family   Courts   Act,
1984 read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, relating to
the duty of the Court to ascertain the truth and Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act relating to the duty of the parties to disclose
their   income.   It   is   apparent   that   the   appellant   husband   has   not
disclosed his true income and has suppressed furnishing material
information and documents with regard to his income, expenses,

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  27 of 30
assets and liabilities.

48. The dictum passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is
that the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure is to be treated
as   guidelines   to   determine   the   true   income   of   the   parties.   The
Courts   is   at   liberty   to   determine   the   nature   and   extent   of
information/documents   necessary   and   shall   direct   the   parties   to
disclose   such   relevant   information   and   documents   to   determine
their true income. The appellant husband has knowingly missed the
mark and not placed material and relevant documents before the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of filing of his affidavit of
income and expenditure, assets.

49. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in  Kusum Sharma v
Mahinder   Sharma  -   FAO   No.   369/1996   judgment   dated
06.12.2017 held that if the statements made in affidavit of assets,
income and expenditure are found to be incorrect, the Court shall
consider its effect while fixing the maintenance. 

50. This Court observes no illegality and perversity in the
impugned   order   passed   by   the   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate.   The
parties  were   directed  to file  their  respective   affidavits of  income
and expenditure, as per the prescribed format and directions passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kusum Sharma v Mahinder
Sharma - FAO No. 369/1996 judgment dated 14.01.2015. Further,

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  28 of 30
the   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   order   dated   20.01.2016
unequivocally states that any omission to file the affidavit or failure
to file the same in the prescribed format or any deviation from the
prescribed   format   shall   be   viewed   seriously   and   may   result   in
imposition of heavy costs on the defaulting party and the version of
opposite   party  be   deemed correct  for  the  purpose  of decision  of
application for interim relief.

51. The interim maintenance awarded by Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate   is   nominal,   as   the   respondent   wife   lives   with   three
children, whose biological father is the appellant husband.

52. The   affidavit   of   income   and   expenditure   dated
28.03.2016   along   with   the   supporting   documents   filed   by   the
respondent   wife   is   in   consonance   with   the   guidelines   and   the
prescribed format and directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court
of   Delhi   in  Kusum   Sharma   v   Mahinder   Sharma  -   FAO   No.
369/1996   judgment   dated 14.01.2015. However,  the  affidavit  of
income and expenditure dated 23.03.2016 filed by the appellant
husband fails to muster the guidelines and the prescribed format.

53. With  the  above discussion and observation this Court
finds no illegality and perversity in the impugned order and does
not   deem   fit   to   interfere   with   the   impugned   order   dated
14.09.2017 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The appeal

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  29 of 30
along pending applications filed by the appellant before this court
stand disposed of in the above terms. 

54. However,  this order shall not affect the merits of the
legal   proceeding   before   the   Ld.   Metropolitan   Magistrate   i.e.   the
application   under   Section   12   of   the   Act   pending   between   the
parties, as the determination of the same will be done by the Trial
Court   after   considering   the   evidence   on   record   and   income
affidavits of the parties.

Criminal Appeal record be consigned to record room. 
Trial   Court   Record   be   sent   back   to   court   concerned
along with copy of order. 

Copy of the order be given dasti.

ON 02.08.2018         ASJ­03, S.E., SAKET COURTS

CA No. 421/17      Farooq Ahmad Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier Page  30 of 30

1 thought on “Farooq Ahmad Shala vs Marie Chanel Gillier on 2 August, 2018

  1. This was a very difficult case and still is. The police didn’t register her complaints because of the colonial bias as she is a foreigner. The husband filed cases after cases not only against her but also against me(her lawyer) in the hope that I would drop the case. When he failed he tried to threaten me and my family. When we started investigating the matter we found out that he has done similar attrocities on 5 other women from different countries. Hats off to the lady who didn’t run away to her country and rather fights the evil in our society, to my team at Mrinal Madhav & Associates for burning the mid night oil, (literally as many times we had to rush to her house at mid night coz her husband would turn up and create a ruckus), to my wife ( also a lawyer but with the Government) for understanding and supporting our zest for real Justice for this battered lady. At the end the judicial system even though slow, did help us shoe that Laws Exist in India even for foreigners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation