The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case involving Bhatia sheds light on the crucial aspects of disclosure and the ultimate decision reached. This case delves into the intricacies of financial transparency and the explanations provided by the parties involved. Find out more about the significant developments in the legal realm regarding Bhatia’s case.
Facts
- Respondent/wife did not disclose her employment and earnings from Ms. Benita Bhatia.
- Respondent/wife did not reveal the joint bank account with her mother in Axis Bank.
- The existence of a bank account with Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch was not disclosed by the respondent/wife.
- The funds from the joint account were used to invest in DLF Home Project.
Issue
- Family Court reviewed the internship certificate submitted by the respondent/wife.
- Family Court determined that the respondent/wife was working as an intern, not employed with Ms. Benita Bhatia.
- The respondent/wife received Rs. 20,000 as reimbursement for travel, internet, food, and other expenses.
Arguments
- Three aspects brought up by the appellant/husband were not given due weight in the Family Court’s decision.
Analysis
- The Family Court accepted the explanations provided by the respondent/wife regarding the fixed deposit created before her marriage.
- The internship certificate supporting the relationship between the respondent/wife and Ms. Benita Bhatia was presented and accepted.
- The explanation given by the respondent/wife regarding the disclosure of the fixed deposit and interest earned was deemed satisfactory by the Family Court.
- Details about the bank accounts in Canara Bank and Axis Bank were considered, with the court acknowledging the disclosure made by the respondent/wife.
- The Axis Bank account in question was a joint account with the respondent/wife’s mother, leading to the conclusion that specific disclosure in the income affidavit was not necessary.
- After examining the explanations provided by the respondent/wife, the Family Court’s conclusion and reasoning were agreed upon.
- Money received from Ms. Benita Bhatia was for reimbursement of expenses, not income requiring disclosure.
- Family Court rightfully accepted the respondent/wife’s explanation regarding bank accounts.
Decision
- The appeal has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-.
- The pending application will be closed.
- Cost has been imposed as the respondent/wife had to engage a lawyer to defend the appeal.
- The cost of Rs.20,000/- will be paid to the respondent/wife within the next two weeks.
Case Title: SIDDHARTH GUJRAL Vs. NATASHA GUJRAL (2024:DHC:4713-DB)
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.)-178/2024
