In this proceedings, Apex Court has observed some interesting information. Take a look.

From Para 6,

It is not understood as to how petitioner’s share of expenditure is Rs. 1 lakh per month out of Rs.1.5 lakhs monthly expenditure. Likewise, it is not explained in Col. 16 as to in what form, income of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per month is generated and who is earning that income. Of course, the petitioner has otherwise maintained that she is not having any other source of income except the amount of maintenance given to her by the respondent. The petitioner has also stated that she is compelled to live in her parents house as the maintenance amount is not sufficient even to pay monthly rent of an aparment.

From Para 8,

In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that the petitioner is maintaining four bank accounts and the total amount lying in these accounts is Rs.8,36,610/-. It is also stated that the petitioner is having fixed deposits in the banks for a total sum of Rs. 35,75,000/-. In this manner, the total bank balance of the petitioner is Rs.44,11,610/-. As against this, the respondent has paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs.49 lakhs from June 4, 2009 to July, 2017. Thus, in the last eight years, against a sum of Rs.49 lakhs paid by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner is still having bank balance of Rs.44 lakhs. According to the respondent, it would be inconceivable that petitioner has spent only Rs.5 lakhs of rupees (or little more if interest earned by the petitioner on the aforesaid Rs.49 lakhs is added) in eight years and that shows that she has other sources of income as well. Other averments in the petitioner’s affidavit was also denied including her share of expenditure in the neighbourhood of Rs.1 lakh per month or that respondent is earning Rs.20 lakhs per month. In respect of the particulars given by the petitioner about the businesses of the respondent, the respondent has denied the same and submits that, at present, there is no Restaurant or Bar anywhere in India in which respondent has any share or interest. He has his own explanation and has given alleged circumstances in which he had to give up his share in certain businesses. The petitioner has controverted his averments in her rejoinder affidavit. During arguments, the petitioner also tried to demonstrate, by referring to certain documents filed by her, that the respondent was indulging in falsehood.

Advice from Supreme Court, hmmm

In these circumstances, the appropriate course of action would be to allow the petitioner to file an application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so that in these proceedings, both the parties lead their documentary and oral evidence and on the basis of such material, appropriate view is taken by the said Court.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

In this proceeding, Petitioner-in-person sought and got one week’s time to file rejoinder affidavit. The Apex Court is also informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in matrimonial case, vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2018, the trial court has allowed the divorce petition of the respondent and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Here are the key orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the case of Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha.

1. On 18 September, 2014, Advocate of the complainant showed antics here.
2. On 4 September, 2017, Supreme Court directs the parties to file documents and lead evidence in the DV Case here.
3. On 29 January, 2018, Supreme Court directs the complaining party to file an affidavit of her income which would be in the format as prescribed in the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of ‘Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma’ decided on 14.01.2015 (FAO No. 309/1996) here.
4. On 09 March, 2018, trial court granted divorce to Prashant from Shalu on the grounds of cruelty, in a 1-day mode here.
5. On 23 July, 2018, Apex Court observed some telltale signs of maliciousness in the affidavit of the complainant here.
6. On 25 January, 2019, Apex Court levied Rs.25,000/- as fine to husband for unnecessarily dragged to this Court and had to file a Contempt Petition, here.
7. On 28 February, 2019, Delhi High Court has set aside the Divorce decree granted by Family Court, in a 1-day mode here.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in