Delhi High Court Dismisses Husband’s Challenge To Maintenance After He Conceals Second Marriage And Children
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom dismissed a revision petition filed by a person towards an order awarding upkeep to his spouse and minor youngster below Part 125 CrPC, discovering that he had intentionally suppressed his second marriage and youngsters born out of that relationship in the course of the trial and made an unjustified late try and convey them on report.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noticed, “On this Courtroom’s opinion, this conduct of concealing materials details in the course of the trial and trying to convey them on report solely at a belated stage, with none convincing clarification or supporting paperwork clearly displays that the petitioner didn’t strategy the discovered Household Courtroom with clear palms.”
The Courtroom added, “A litigant who suppresses materials details, misleads the Courtroom, and fails to come back ahead with candour throughout trial can’t be allowed to profit from such conduct at a later stage.”
Advocate S.N. Khan appeared for the Respondents.
Temporary Info
The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have been married in line with Muslim rites and customs, and a son was born out of wedlock. The Respondent alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry calls for, together with bodily violence and neglect throughout being pregnant, and returned to her parental house quickly thereafter. She filed a petition below Part 125 CrPC in search of upkeep for herself and her son, claiming that she was financially depending on her mother and father and that the Petitioner was employed as an assistant vice chairman at a non-public agency with a considerable wage.
The Petitioner claimed he was solely a freelancer with a low month-to-month revenue and denied all allegations of cruelty. He filed an affidavit of revenue and expenditure however made no point out of any second marriage or youngsters.
It was solely after the conclusion of proof and earlier than last arguments that he filed an extra affidavit stating that he had entered right into a second marriage in 2019 and had three youngsters from that relationship. He claimed his second spouse had died just lately throughout childbirth and that this truth ought to be thought of whereas deciding upkeep.
The Household Courtroom rejected the belated affidavit for lack of supporting paperwork and inconsistencies in delivery data. The affidavit was by no means challenged and attained finality. The Household Courtroom then awarded ₹10,000 month-to-month upkeep every to the spouse and son. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning of the Courtroom
The Courtroom discovered that the Petitioner’s conduct throughout trial proceedings mirrored a transparent and deliberate suppression of details related to his monetary liabilities.
The Bench famous, “…the petitioner had intentionally hid his second marriage and the alleged delivery of three youngsters from the stated marriage all through the trial proceedings. The petitioner, as he claims, had contracted one other marriage on 07.01.2019, and but, even whereas submitting his affidavit of property, revenue and expenditure shortly thereafter on 14.01.2019, he had made no point out of this second marriage.”
The Courtroom noticed that this omission was not an oversight however a calculated try and withhold materials details, stating, “This omission can’t be considered an inadvertent error, however reasonably a aware act of suppression of a cloth truth, particularly when such data instantly pertained to the query of his monetary capability and obligations, which have been below scrutiny within the upkeep proceedings.”
The Courtroom additionally famous that the affidavit disclosing the second marriage was filed solely after the dying of the alleged second spouse, and after the conclusion of recording of proof. “Notably, even within the affidavit of proof filed on 21.08.2023, he made no reference to having entered right into a second marriage or having fathered youngsters from that relationship. It was solely belatedly… that he sought to convey this data on report, via an extra affidavit”, it added.
The Courtroom held that the Household Courtroom rightly rejected the extra affidavit as a consequence of its timing and the absence of credible proof, observing, “This belated try and introduce a new factual narrative, after the closing of proof and when last arguments have been to be heard, rightly invited scepticism from the discovered Household Courtroom.”
On the difficulty of quantum of upkeep, the Courtroom held, “The grant of upkeep within the sum of ₹20,000/- per thirty days in favour of the respondents can’t be stated to be unjust, arbitrary, or extreme, notably within the absence of any dependable and constant proof positioned by the petitioner on the contrary.”
Accordingly, the Courtroom upheld the order of the Household Courtroom, and dismissed the revision petition.
Trigger Title: Syed Danish Azeem v. Smt. Nazia Parveen @ Nazia & Anr. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5198)
