Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv v. SANJEEV GERA

Judgment

1. This present batch of connected Appeals arises out of the same matrimonial proceedings being HMA No. 1061/2017, titled Mr. Sanjeev Gera v. Mrs. Sangeeta Gera, and involves the same set of parties. The first three appeals, being MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018 and MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2018, assail the interim Order in the proceedings dated 06.12.2017. The last appeal, MAT APPL. (F.C.) 38/2019, is filed by Sh. Sanjeev Gera against the Judgement dated 15.01.2019, wherein his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as “HMA”] was dismissed.

2. These Appeals, having arisen from the same lis and involving the same parties, are being disposed of by this common judgment with MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 2 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rank in the main case, i.e., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 38/2019. Sh. Sanjeev Gera shall hereinafter be referred to as the

Husband/Appellant, and Smt. Sangeeta Gera as the Wife/Respondent. APPEALS AND RELIEFS: i. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017: filed by the Respondent challenging the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2017 to the extent that it allows the application under Section 27 of the HMA and directs the Respondent to give her „No Objection Certificate‟ to the Appellant and thereby enabling him to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,09,00,000/- lying with the HSBC Bank, Mumbai as surplus against the closure of loan account No. 120-023163-001; ii. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018: filed by the Respondent for modification of the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2017 and to enhance the ad-interim maintenance awarded; iii. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2018: filed by the Appellant seeking to set aside the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2017 insofar as it pertains to the application under Section 24 of the HMA; iv. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 38/2019: filed by the Appellant seeking the grant of dissolution of marriage between the parties and setting aside the Judgement dated 15.01.2019 wherein the petition seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 3 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. The common facts of the Appeals are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 06.07.1999 at Amritsar, Punjab, in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies and registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Out of the said wedlock, no issue or child was born.The parties were residing together at 401, Sovereign Apartments, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “rented accommodation”], until 14.01.2006, from which date they started living separately. Thereafter, the Respondent came back to Noida on 25.03.2006 to reside in the house of the Appellant‟s mother at C-88, Sector 33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

5. On 20.02.2006, the Appellant filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that the Respondent has committed cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the Family Court, Bandra, State of Maharashtra. Upon moving a Transfer Petition bearing No. 130/2007 before the Supreme Court by the Respondent, the matter was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

6. In this Petition, the Appellant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking amendment of the petition by adding desertion within the scope and meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA as another ground for seeking divorce and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2017.

7. In the interregnum, on 16.12.2008, the Respondent filed an MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 4 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings in the divorce petition.

8. Admittedly, in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “PWDV”] instituted by the Respondent, the Court awarded ad-interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month to the Respondent with effect from 05.01.2007. Subsequently, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”], instituted by the Respondent, the learned M.M. (Mahila Court), Delhi, passed an Order directing the payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per month with effect from 13.02.2013.

9. A flat bearing No. 1902, Heritage Apartments, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”], was purchased in the joint names of the parties in February

2005. Admittedly, the EMIs were paid by the Appellant. It was sold by the bank as the loan was not cleared. After the dues were adjusted, a sum of Rs.1.09 crores was deposited in HSBC Bank. On 20.09.2012, an application under Section 27 of the HMA was filed by the Appellant to release the amount in his favour, which was allowed by the learned Family Court.

10. The learned Family Court allowed both the applications vide the common Order dated 06.12.2017. The Appellant was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing the application till the date of passing the order of maintenance by the MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 5 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 learned M.M. under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., i.e., 13.02.2013, after adjusting Rs.30,000/-, which was paid in the domestic violence case, along with litigation cost of Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, the Appellant was found liable to pay ad-interim maintenance, thereafter at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Additionally, while allowing the application under Section 27 of the HMA, the Respondent was directed to issue a „No Objection Certificate‟ to the Appellant, enabling him to withdraw the amount of Rs.1.09 crores lying with the HSBC Bank.

11. The Respondent assailed the Order before this Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 to the extent that the application under section 27 of the HMA was allowed, on the ground that since the property was a joint property and stood in the names of both parties, the balance of the sale proceeds should accordingly be divided between both parties. Vide Order dated 14.12.2017 of this Court, 50% of the amount was released in favour of the Husband/Appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondent.

12. On 26.03.2019, this Court, considering that the question of ownership of the property is still open and the right of the Respondent should be preserved, directed the Registrar General to make a Fixed Deposit of 50% of the amount with UCO Bank at a higher rate of interest initially for a period of two years. It was clarified that the rights and contentions of both parties with respect to their right and title over the amount were kept open and to be decided along with the substantive petitions, which were already pending between the parties.

13. Against this Order, SLP 17308/2019 was filed by MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 6 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 Respondent, which was dismissed on 17.01.2020 with the direction that the question relating to 50% share of the Wife/Respondent herein has to be decided alongwith MAT Appeal (FC) No. 38 of 2019.

14. Cross-appeals were filed against the Impugned Order dated

06.12.2017, insofar as it pertains to the quantum of ad-interim maintenance awarded to the Respondent in the application filed under Section 24 of the HMA. In MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018, Respondent claims that the ad-interim maintenance awarded is disproportionately low, as the Appellant is earning much more than what has been disclosed on record, whereas, in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2018, the Appellant has alleged that the Respondent has been receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000 per month from him in parallel proceedings.

15. Subsequently, the divorce petition bearing HMA No. 1061/2017 was dismissed vide Judgment dated 15.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Judge, on the ground that the Appellant was not able to prove the grounds for cruelty and desertion. Being aggrieved by this Judgment, the Appellant filed MAT APP. (F.C.) 38/2019. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

16. Respondent/Wife in MAT APPEAL (FC) NO. 217/2017:

16.1 Learned counsel for the Respondent/Wife has contended that the 50% share of the surplus amount belongs to the Respondent, and constitutes part of her Stridhana, as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as “HSA”]. He further MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017 and connected matters Page 7 of 35 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:23.09.2025 18:17:43 contended that the Appellant has admitted in his additional affidavit dated 20.09.2011 in the proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA that the 50% share belongs to the Respondent. Further, he relied upon the judgments of Rashmi Kumari (Smt.) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada1, Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar2, and Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhary and Anr.3 to contend that a woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhana.

17. Respondent/Wife in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018:

17.1 Learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that the circumstances of the Appellant drastically changed after 2017, and the Appellant started earning a total salary of Rs.1,26,01,554 per annum. In the year 2016, the Appellant filed the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, wherein he had declared the undisclosed income of Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.23,44,721, totalling a sum of Rs.65,44,721 and therefore, the interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court is not sufficient, and she is entitled to 50% of the earnings of the Appellant.

18. Appellant/Husband in Mat. APP. (F.C.) 20/2018:

18.1 Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the claim of maintenance pendente lite is conditional on the circumstances that the wife or husband, who makes the request, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet his necessary expenses. The Respondent had considerable income from the sale of