Case Law Details
Pradeep Yadav Vs Pysharie Yadav (Punjab And Haryana High Court)
Introduction: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled on a significant case involving the payment of maintenance to a minor son by his father, who claimed unemployment as a reason for non-payment. The case, Pradeep Yadav Vs Pysharie Yadav, highlights the court’s stance on the responsibilities of parents, regardless of their employment status, and emphasizes the importance of considering all sources of income, including immovable properties and potential earnings from various activities.
Case Background: The case originated from an order dated June 5, 2017, by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, directing Pradeep Yadav (the petitioner) to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his minor son from the date of the petition, August 13, 2015. The petitioner contested this order, citing his unemployment since 2012 after initially earning ₹55,000 per month as a clerk at ICICI Bank.
Petitioner’s Argument: Pradeep Yadav argued that he had no source of income and was unable to pay the maintenance. He pointed out that his former spouse, Pysharie Yadav, was well-educated (M.Sc. in Physics and B.Ed.) and employed as a Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, earning ₹55,000 per month. He contended that it was unjust to place the entire financial burden on him, especially since both parents share the responsibility of maintaining their child.
Respondent’s Argument: Pysharie Yadav, representing their minor son, argued that Pradeep Yadav had not contributed to the child’s maintenance and was in arrears of approximately ₹2,50,000. She provided evidence of his income, including agricultural land ownership and property dealing activities. The respondent highlighted that Pradeep Yadav’s Income Tax Returns and other documents contradicted his claims of unemployment.
Court’s Findings: The court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that Pradeep Yadav had sufficient means to pay the maintenance. Key findings included:
1. Income Tax Returns: These documents indicated an income of ₹18,000 per month, contradicting his claims of having no income.
2. Property Ownership: Pradeep Yadav owned agricultural land, which could generate additional income.
Property Dealing: Evidence suggested that Pradeep Yadav was involved in property dealing, with potential earnings of ₹25,000 per month from these activities.
3. Despite multiple opportunities, Pradeep Yadav failed to provide an accurate account of his assets and liabilities, further diminishing the credibility of his unemployment claim.
Court’s Order: The court directed Pradeep Yadav to bring a demand draft of ₹3,00,000 in favor of his minor son and submit a detailed affidavit of his assets and income sources. However, he only provided ₹50,000 and did not comply with the affidavit submission, demonstrating a lack of cooperation.
Conclusion: The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that Pradeep Yadav must fulfill his financial responsibilities towards his minor son, despite his claims of unemployment. This ruling reaffirms the principle that both parents are obligated to support their children and that claims of unemployment must be substantiated with credible evidence. The court’s decision underscores the importance of thorough financial disclosure and the need to consider all potential sources of income in maintenance cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 05.06.2017 passed by learned District. Judge, Family Court, Gurugram, where by filed by the respondent/minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/father has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e. 13.08.2015 .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner was married to mother of the respondent on 11.02.2005. The respondent was born out of their wedlock The mother of the respondent deserted the petitioner without any cause and the respondent was delivered at her parental home.
3. Learned counsel submits that mother of the respondent is M.Sc. (Physics) and B.Ed. and she is employed as a Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Kadipur, Sector 10, Gurgaon from where she is drawing handsome salary of Rs. 55,000/- per month. On the other hand, the petitioner has no source of income. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially employed as a Clerk in ICICI Bank, Gurgaon in the year 2005, from where he was getting salary of Rs.55,000/-..However,. since. 2012, the petitioner is unemployed. Accordingly, the petitioner is unable to pay the impugned maintenance. Moreover, the petitioner has also been effect has been issued and as such, he is unable to pay the final maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month to the respondent.
4. Learned counsel argues that unlike the petitioner, the mother of the respondent is having sufficient source of income. Admittedly, the expenses of the minor respondent could not be more than Rs.5,000/ per month. Moreover, it is the duty of both the parents to maintain their minor child . As such, the entire burden could not have been cast only upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance also in view of the fact that it was the mother of the respondent who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause.
5. It is further submitted that the contention of wife of the petitioner and finding of the learned Family Court with regard to Ex.P5 i.e. screenshots wherein some Pradeep Rao was shown to be working as a property dealer, is not even sustainable in the eyes of law, since it is a settled proposition of law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such screenshots do not carry any evidentiary value. It is contended that accordingly, the learned Family Court could not have relied upon these screenshots while passing the impugned order.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner never contributed anything towards the maintenance. Even now, the petitioner is in arrears of maintenance to the tune of about ₹2,50,000/- at least. It is denied that the petitioner is having no source of income. It is contended that in actual fact the petitioner has agricultural land and is also doing the work of property dealing.
7. It was candidly admitted by the respondent before the learned Family Court, as also before this Court that mother of the respondent is M.Sc. (Physics) and B.Ed. and she is employed as a Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary School, Kadipur, Sector 10, Gurgaon. The month of the repondad hed field had filed her Affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) and had also deposed as PW1 to the truthfulness of the above facts . It is however contended that the petitioner is an able-bodied person, and as such, it is his duty to maintain the respondent. it is accordingly prayed, that the present petition be dismissed.
8. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.
10. on 01.04.2024, following order was passed by this
“Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is in the arrears of maintenance to the tune of almost Rs.5 lacs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he is in arrears of maintenance, however, is unable to inform as to the amount of maintenance due. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is unable to pay the awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pre month as he is earning only Rs.10,000/-per month.
Heard.
The petitioner-father is directed to bring a demand draft Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of respondent-minor son on the next date of hearing i.e. 23.05.2024.
In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also furnish an affidavit of the petitioner detailing therein all his movable and immovable properties in his name as well as in the name of his parents, his avocation and income from all sources.”
11. On 23.05.2024, the matter was adjourned at request of learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to comply with aforesaid order with last opportunity.
12. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought a demand draft only for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the respondent, which is handed over to learned counsel for the respondent and a photocopy of the same is taken on record. the petitioner has also failed to file his Affidavit of Assets and liabilities.
13. Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitioner was married to mother of the respondent on 11.02.2005 . At that time, the petitioner was working as a Senior Executive with ICICI Bank, Gurgaon, from where he was getting salary of Rs.55,000/-.After that, he worked with separately since May, 2009.
14. As the petitioner was contributing in no manner towards the maintenance of the respondent, as such, the respondent/minor son was constrained to file the present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.08.2015, in which it was alleged that the petitioner was a property ; the petitioner was having agricultural land from which he is earning Rs.1.5 lakh per month. Moreover, the respondent had also produced sufficient evidence on record in the form of Income Tax Returns of the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 (EX.P1), 2015-16 (Ex.P2), copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03 (Ex.P3), copy of mutation (Ex.P4), copy of screenshot of the conversation of the petitioner with regard to property dealings (Ex.P5).
15. On the other hand, the petitioner although appeared as RW1 before the learned Family Court, however, led no documentary evidence. On the basis of evidence led by both the parties, the learned Family Court returned the findings that the mother of the respondent was a teacher in a Government Senior Secondary School, Gurgaon and is earning Rs.35,000/- per month; the respondent is studying in DPS School and is entirely dependent upon his mother for sustenance the respondent had been living in rented accommodation with his mother; the petitioner had towards the maintenance. It is further found by that as per the Income Tax Returns of the petitioner petitioner was earning approximately Rs.18,000/- per month.
16. It has also come on record and has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of 11 kanal of land (10 kanaL ancestral property and 1 kanal self-acquired agricultural land) situated at village Pahari, Gurugram.
17. The relevant findings of the learned Family Court in this regard are as under:-
“10. Keeping all the above factors in mind, the evidence led by the parties may be examined. From the evidence it has surfaced that the respondent is in fact filing income tax return of Rs.18,000/-per month as is evident from Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 where he was shown his net income as Rs.2,16,740/-annually which comes to Rs.18,000/- per month approximately.
11. Similarly from Ex.P4, it has become evident that the respondent has inherited 1/3rd share of the land owned by his father on his demise. Mutation No.1082 dated 9.9.2010 (Ex.P4) has been placed on file. By even taking a conservative view, the respondent will be earning at least Rs.10,000/-per month from the said land.
12. The petitioner has also placed on record the screen- shots of the various website which are being run by the respondent as property dealer. The respondent had led evidence after these documents were placed on record. Apart from bald denial there is nothing on record to rebut these documents. The documents pertaining to the website are Ex.P5 constituting 23 pages where Pardeep Rao is shown to have website named as Yards 2A cre, Gurgaon through which he is running Real Estate business. The kind of queries and the responses placed on record will give rise to a presumption that at least Rs.25,000/- may be earned through this site monthly. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondent is earning at least Rs.53,000/- per month (Rs.18,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/-).”
18. In direct contravention of the above said facts and statement has been made by the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner is Below Poverty Line (BPL). However, there is nothing on record to remotely suggest the same to be true. Clearly, the said plea has been taken by the petitioner only to avoid paying maintenance to the respondent. In any event, the facts on record refute any such assertion by the petitioner. petitioner has exhibited a very uncooperative and irresponsible attitude in his category refusal to contribute towards the maintenance of his child. The relationship between the parties being admitted, the petitioner cannot absolve himself of his responsibility in maintaining his child.
20. In view of the above, the present petition is
21. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
Author Bio
