IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,
GURUGRAM DISTRICT COURTS, GURUG RAM
HMA NO. 742 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Mrs. Anuradha Vashisht ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shri Dinesh Vashisht ...RESPONDENT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, FOR
GRANT OF MAINTENANCE PENDENTELITE AS WELL AS
LITIGATION EXPENSES
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicant herein is the petitioner in the above
noted H.M.A. Petition for dissolution of marriage by a
decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as petition for
divorce), which petition is pending for adjudication before
this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the applicant/Petitioner has filed the petition and the
contents of the said petition may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this application also as the same have not been
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That admittedly, the applicant and the respondent were
married in accordance with Hindu Rites and rituals on 11th
May 1993 at Talkatora Stadium, New Delhi and therefore,
the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent
in the above noted petition for divorce.
4. That the Respondent has made the life of the petitioner a
miserable hell and has not made any provision for the
maintenance of the respondent knowing fully well that the
applicant has inadequate monetary means to survive and
has further no means to litigate against the petitioner for
her rights.
5. That the petitioner as mentioned above did not pay any
money and rather has been wasting money which could
have met out the needs of the petitioner.
6. That today the petitioner is not having money for
maintaining the day-to-day expenditure, money for
payment to her personal loans, two unmarried daughters’
day to day expenditure and other day to day activities as
she has no income of her own. On the other hand, the
respondent is spending huge amount of money for his
other activities. It is pertinent to mention here that the
respondent has a knack of manipulating the situations and
twisting of facts and figures.
7. That the applicant had been treated with cruelty by the
respondent as mentioned in the petition, the contents of
which may kindly be treated as part and parcel of the
present application as well as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. That the respondent/non-applicant is a man of means and
status. He is retired from the Indian Air Force, from where
he is getting/earning/pension of about Rs.1,50,000/-
approx. per month. Besides the said earnings, he also has
likely income of over Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from rentals
and investments in shares and mutual funds. He also has
substantial earnings from working as a commercial pilot
since his retirement in 2016. Thus, from all the sources,
the income of the petitioner is likely about Rs.5,00,000/-
per month. He is also owning property at Dwarka, Delhi
and Gurgaon, at the address mentioned in the petition.
Besides this, he has got a number of movable and
immovable properties, the details of which are not within
the specific knowledge of the applicant and the petitioner is
required to disclose the same before this Hon’ble Court.
The respondent has no other liability except to maintain
the petitioner and their daughters who are fully dependent
upon the respondent as the entire extended family
members of the respondent are self-sufficient. That the
respondent has no liability on his shoulders except to
maintain the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife.
9. The petitioner states that she does not have any movable
or immovable property. During the period of the nationwide
lockdown and for a continuous period of one year
thereafter, the respondent wilfully neglected and
abandoned his duties and responsibilities as both a father
and a husband. Specifically, during this period, when the
petitioner’s younger daughter was continuing her studies in
Chandigarh, the respondent ceased to provide any financial
support for her education. As a result, the petitioner was
forced to seek financial assistance from her mother,
friends, and relatives. Furthermore, the respondent has
continued to fail to meet the essential financial needs of
the family, compelling the petitioner to incur significant
debt through personal loans. The details of the loans taken
by the petitioner over the past four years are as follows:
1. Mrs. Sunita Saini: Rs. 4.80 lakh (bank transfer) + Rs.
70,000 (cash) = Rs. 5.50 lakh
2. Mrs. Sarla Sharma: Rs. 2.50 lakh (bank transfer)
3. Mrs. Swatantar Nanda: Rs. 82,000 (bank transfer) +
Rs. 20,000 (cash) = Rs. 1.02 lakh
4. Mrs. Aditi Sanger: Rs. 85,000
5. Petitioner’s friend (name undisclosed): Rs. 2 lakh
6. Total Amount: Rs. 11,87,000
The petitioner further asserts that the loans were
necessitated by the respondent's persistent failure to fulfil
his financial obligations towards the family. In addition, as
the petitioner and her daughters were without permanent
residence, the petitioner’s mother provided financial
assistance from her personal savings to facilitate the
construction of a modest two-bedroom dwelling. To
complete the construction of the said house, the
petitioner’s mother was also compelled to mortgage her
land to secure additional funds. The petitioner and her
daughters are currently residing in this house.
10. In her urgent desire to become financially independent and
ensure that her daughters could complete their education
without further reliance on the financial assistance of well-
wishers, the petitioner attempted to establish a dry food
processing enterprise under the Prime Minister’s
Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). To finance
this venture, the petitioner secured a loan under the said
scheme. However, the project faced significant delays due
to the escalation of prices arising from the Ukraine-Russia
conflict, which hindered the petitioner’s ability to complete
the enterprise.
11. To assist the petitioner, her mother once again intervened
by increasing the loan amount secured against her
mortgaged land. To support the petitioner and her
daughters and to prevent them from falling into extreme
financial hardship, the petitioner’s mother took out a
substantial bank loan of Rs. 40 lakhs. Unfortunately, the
petitioner’s mother passed away on 02.10.2024, leaving
the petitioner with substantial financial liability, including
the risk of the mortgaged property being seized by the
bank unless the petitioner can repay the outstanding loans.
12. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent's reckless
attitude and the financial suffocation to which he has
subjected his wife and children have resulted in severe
mental and emotional distress for the petitioner and her
daughters. The petitioner, having recently turned 60, finds
herself with insufficient physical and financial resources to
extricate herself and her daughters, who are of
marriageable age, from this overwhelming financial
burden. The petitioner’s younger daughter has expressed a
strong desire to complete her higher education for the past
three years, to establish a career and become financially
independent, thereby relieving her mother of any further
burdens. However, the petitioner is currently unable to pay
for her daughter’s tuition fees due to a lack of financial
resources. Moreover, the petitioner wishes for her elder
daughter to settle down and become financially
independent; however, she is unable to invest in any
enterprise or provide the necessary support to facilitate her
daughter’s career development or financial independence.
13. That the mother of the opposite party/respondent is equally
and/or better self-reliant as she is getting a pension and
the opposite party/respondent is not obliged to maintain
her or anyone else for that matter out of his income.
14. That looking into the various facts and circumstances, the
petitioner and their daughters are also entitled to live and
spend the life at par with the status of the respondent.
Besides this, the petitioner shall be appropriately claiming
any other claim in any other proceeding at the appropriate
stage and for which the petitioner is reserving her rights.
15. That from the above-mentioned facts, the petitioner is
entitled to the ad-interim relief which is being prayed in the
present application and there is prima facie case in favour
of the petitioner and the balance of convenience is also in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and in
case the petitioner is not protected and interim orders is
not granted, the petitioner and their/her daughters shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated in terms of money.
16. That the comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial
life span of the petitioner and the respondent clearly shows
that the respondent is guilty of treating the petitioner with
violence that is physical, mentally, and economically as
well and that is without any just and reasonable cause,
which has been unpardonable and unforgiveable and his
willful and unjustifiable acts have inflicted severs
harassment and agony to the petitioner and her daughters.
17. That the respondent has provided Rs. 25,000 in per months
for the support of the petitioner and their two daughters.
However, this amount is quite insufficient, and the
petitioner has been left with no choice but to borrow
money from friends and relatives just to cover the most
basic day-to-day expenses, as well as medical cost for the
daughters. This financial uncertainty has caused significant
hardship and emotional strain on the family. What makes
matters worse is that the respondent has only given money
after repeated pleas and begging from the daughters, who
have had to call and message him countless times,
desperately seeking help. The small amounts that were
finally provided have been a mere "pinch," insufficient to
truly ease the burdens they face. This constant cycle of
begging for help has caused deep emotional distress to the
daughters, who feel abandoned and rejected by their own
father.
18. In addition to the emotional toll on the daughters, the
family/friends have been subjected to cruel and insensitive
remarks from relatives and friends. They have often been
asked, "Where is your father, who has money, not helping
you? Why are you always begging for financial support?"
These comments have further humiliated and demoralized
the daughters, amplifying the pain of already feeling
unsupported and neglected. This situation has left the
petitioner and daughters in emotional turmoil, struggling to
cope with the ongoing financial and psychological burden.
19. That the petitioner had been subjected to mental cruelty,
physically and psychologically. The respondent refused to
support the petitioner and their daughters and blamed her
and apart from physical cruelties, the petitioner has been
subjected to different types of cruelties, which is more
harmful than physical cruelties and this has destroyed her
peace of mind and grievously hurt her mental feeling.
20. That in terms of the principles of law reiterated by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Pradeep Kumar
Kapoor Versus Ms. Shailja Kapoor, reported in AIR 1989
Delhi 10, that in deciding the application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court has to act in
accordance with sound judicial principles on considering (i)
position and status of the parties, (ii) feasible wants of the
claimants (towards food, clothing, shelter, medical
attendance and treatment, education and the like), (iii)
income of the claimant, (iv) number of persons opposite
party is obliged to maintain. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court
also in that judgment, inter alias held that in arriving at the
income of a party involuntary deductions like income tax,
provident fund contribution etc. are to be excluded.
21. That the applicant/petitioner has no immovable or movable
property and all such possessions is only few wearing
apparels and day to day house hold articles and thus the
petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One
lac seventy-five thousand only) per month as and by way of
maintenance from the respondent which the respondent is
legally bound to pay the same to the petitioner being his
legally wedded wife.
22. That the respondent needs to provide to the petitioner cost
of litigation to enable the petitioner to assistance and
pursue the present petition on merits.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
graciously pleased to:-
(a) direct the respondent/non applicant to pay the travel
and accommodation expenses of Rs 20,000/-
whenever petitioner can to attend the matter.
(b) Direct the respondent/ non applicant to pay litigation
expense of rupees – 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh
only)
(c) direct the petitioner/non applicant to pay the
maintenance at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month for
the respondent/applicant.
(d) Any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem
proper under the circumstances of the case may also
be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent also awarded to the petitioner.
APPLICANT/PETITIONER
THROUGH
COUNSEL
GURUGRAM 12A, JANGPURA,
DATED: NEW DELHI-14
EN.
D/2294/2005
MOB.9911667995
VERIFICATION: -
The above-named applicant states on the solemn affirmation that the
contents of paras 1 to 19 of the application are true and correct to
my knowledge and belief. The last para is a prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.
Verified at Gurugram on this 12th day of November 2024.
PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,
GURUGRAM DISTRICT COURTS, GURUGRAM
HMA NO. 742 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Mrs Anuradha Vashisht ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shri Dinesh Vashisht ...RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, MRS. ANURADHA VASHISHT AGED 58 YEARS OLD, W/O
SH. DINESH VASHISHT R/O SHRADDHA SUMAN, VPO
DHANOTU, TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH PIN-176208, PRESENTLY AT
GURUGRAM, HARYANA. I, THE ABOVE-NAMED DEPONENT
DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:
-
1. That I am the petitioner/applicant in the above noted matter
and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the present case and also competent to swear the present
affidavit.
2. That the deponent herein is the petitioner in the above noted
H.M.A. Petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as petition for divorce), which
petition is pending for adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.
3. That admittedly, the applicant and the petitioner were
married in accordance with Hindu Rites and rituals on 11th
May 1993 at Talkatora Stadium, New Delhi and therefore, the
applicant is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner in the
above noted respondent for divorce.
4. That the respondent needs to provide the petitioner cost of
litigation to enable the respondent to seek legal assistance
and to pursue the present petition on merits.
5. That the contents of the accompanying application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, have been
drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and the
contents of the same have been duly read and understood
by me and after fully understanding the contents of the
same, I hereby state that the facts stated therein are all true
and correct to my knowledge. The facts stated therein may
kindly be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as
well, as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake
of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, Anuradha Vashisht the above-named deponent do hereby verify
on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely
stated therein. Signed and verified at Gurugram on this 12 th day of
November 2024.
DEPONEN
T
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,
GURUGRAM DISTRICT COURTS, GURUGRAM
HMA NO. 742 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Mrs Anuradha Vashisht ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Shri Dinesh Vashisht ...RESPONDENT
LIST OF WITNESSES
1. Petitioner herself.
2. Tejaswini Vashisht (Daughter)
3. Devyani Vashisht (Daughter)
4. Mrs. Sunita Saini (Friend)
5. Kunal Vashisht
Dated -12.11.2024
Appellant _
