—

Delhi High Court

Sachin Kumar Daksh vs Mamta Gola And Anr on 16 February, 2024

Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C.1283/2024, CRL.M.A.5059/2024, CRL.M.A.5058/2024
SACHIN KUMAR DAKSH ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms.Aarushi Desai, Mr.Shivansh
B.Pandey and Mr.Amaan Ahmed
Khan, Advocates
versus
MAMTA GOLA AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Charu and Mr.Satyaarth Balajee
Sinha, Advocates for respondent No.1
and 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A.5059/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.M.C.1283/2024, CRL.M.A.5058/2024

1. A petition under Section 482 read with 483 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
on behalf of the petitioner challenging order dated 16.01.2024 passed by
learned Family Court, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi whereby respondent
No.1 (wife) has been permitted to file fresh income affidavit in accordance
with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another,
(2021) 2 SCC 324.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C.1283/2024 Page 1 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:17.02.2024
18:35:09

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears on advance notice.

3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 11.12.2019. A petition
for divorce was preferred by the petitioner at Family Court at Ahemdabad.
On the other hand, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred on
behalf of the respondent wife before Family Court at Aligarh, which has
been transferred to Delhi. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
respondent No.1 filed an income asset affidavit, wherein petitioner took a
stand regarding furnishing of incorrect information by respondent. Further,
the reply to the interrogatories is stated to have not been filed by respondent
No.1. An application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is also stated to have been
filed by the petitioner before the Family Court.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 realised that
her falsehood and suppression has been discovered and sought to amend the
income and expenditure affidavit. The learned Family Court is stated to have
allowed respondent No.1 to file the income and expenditure affidavit vide
order dated 10.04.2023 which was challenged by the petitioner in
CRL.M.C.3572/2023.The High Court vide order dated 23.05.2023 set aside
the order dated 10.04.2023 and allowed the petitioner to file objections on
amendment application and decide the same before proceeding further. The
learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 16.01.2024 allowed
respondent No.1 to file fresh income and expenditure affidavit on the ground
that income and expenditure affidavit submitted is not as per the format of
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier affidavit

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C.1283/2024 Page 2 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:17.02.2024
18:35:09
submitted by respondent No.1 in Hindi is also as per the format of Rajnesh
v. Neha and Another (supra), and the filing of fresh income asset affidavit
incorporates amended details which would frustrate the pending application
under Section 340 Cr.P.C., preferred on behalf of the petitioner

6. On the other hand, the order passed by the learned Family Court is
supported on behalf of respondents.

7. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court reflects
that it was pleaded on behalf of respondent No.1 that inadvertently necessary
facts could not be added in the previous affidavit and the proposed
amendment is not inconsistent with the original application. The proposed
amendment was also stated to be necessary since it went to the root of the
issue. After taking into consideration the objections/contentions raised by
the petitioner, learned Trial Court observed that the earlier affidavit filed by
the parties on record cannot be taken off record and while considering the
dispute on any facts/figures, the Court can consider the earlier affidavit
placed on record. It was further observed that the respondent could not be
stopped from filing proper income affidavit as observed in Rajnesh v. Neha
and Another (supra) and accordingly allowed the fresh filing of the affidavit.

8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.

The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice
and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect
women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have
been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and
to deal with family disputes in an expeditious and speedy manner. Section
10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C.1283/2024 Page 3 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:17.02.2024
18:35:09
or sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall prevent a
Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a
settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the
truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by another party. Thus, the
objective remains to reach at the truth of the facts, which is a guiding star for
the proceedings under the Family Courts Act. Even in terms of Section 14 of
the Family Court Act, the Family Court may receive as evidence any report,
statement, information or matter that may in its opinion assists it to deal
effectively with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise
relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Keeping in
perspective the aforesaid objective and provisions, the technicalities cannot
be permitted to prevail. The learned Family Court after appreciation of the
facts correctly permitted the filing of the fresh affidavit instead of
amendment of earlier affidavit to enable the parties to bring out any
inconsistencies or discrepancies for consideration. The same does not
prejudice the petitioner in any manner, as contended.

9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a similar
objection was also taken in CRL.M.C.260/2024 wherein the petitioner
challenged orders dated 08.12.2023 and 10.04.2023 passed by the learned
MM in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 initiated by respondent No.1. Vide order dated 11.01.2024, the
objection taken against filing of amended affidavit was dismissed.

10. It may further be observed that any direction by the Trial Court to file
a fresh affidavit does not obliterate the earlier affidavit filed by respondent
No.1 on record. Appropriate proceedings can always be considered by the
Court in accordance with law in case the Court is of the opinion that a false

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C.1283/2024 Page 4 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:17.02.2024
18:35:09
affidavit had been filed in the proceedings by either of the parties. The same
does not in any manner adversely impact the application, if any, preferred by
the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

11. In the facts and circumstances, order passed by learned Family Court
permitting to file a fresh/amended affidavit furnishing necessary details does
not require any interference and shall enable the Court to rightly consider the
fixing of maintenance amount.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Family Court for
information.

(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2024/sd

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
CRL.M.C.1283/2024 Page 5 of 5
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:17.02.2024
18:35:09