* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 581/2010
Date of Decision: April 29, 2010
SH. JAS PAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Adv. with
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
versus
SMT. GURMEET KAUR ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) CM(M) 581/2010 and CM APPL.7918/2010 (stay)
1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated 24.02.2010, whereby on an application of the Respondent, learned ADJ granted interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month cumulatively to the wife and the daughter, namely, Rasleen, from the date of the application i.e. 12.08.2009, CM(M) No.581/2010 Page 1 of 4 besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-
2. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Trial Court did not correctly assess his income while awarding maintenance. He claimed that he is earning only Rs.2,500/- per month as a commission agent in a Brokerage Firm and does not own any moveable or immoveable property. He resides with his parents whereas Respondent wife is running a Boutique and is earning about Rs.25,000/- per month. She is also residing in the matrimonial home.
3. Admittedly, Petitioner did not place any proof on record to show that he is earning only Rs.2,500/- per month as commission and has no other source of income. The Court observed that none of the parties produced any proof to support their respective contentions. Finding itself at a loss to appreciate the submissions of the parties, Court indulged into guess work. Considering the fact that Petitioner was working as a Commission Agent, the Trial Court, in my view, rightly awarded interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- cumulatively to the wife and the daughter.
CM(M) No.581/2010 Page 2 of 4
4. Mr. R.K.Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner has emphasized that parties to the petition started living separately since 2003 and the application was filed only in 2009. He has argued that since Respondent was not in need of any maintenance, she did not make any claim for the same and therefore, the conduct of the Respondent clearly indicates that she is working for gain, may be that she is running a Boutique. I find no force in these submissions.
5. Respondent did not take any legal step against the Petitioner and probably waited silently for him to resolve the dispute. It was only when Petitioner filed divorce petition, she claimed maintenance for herself and the child and also litigation expenses. If Respondent had any intention to harass the Petitioner or to pressurize him, she would have filed a criminal complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, or a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Simply because Petitioner avoided to take his responsibility of maintaining his wife and the child and Respondent did not force him to do so, he cannot be absolved of his liability to maintain his wife and child by taking a plea that Respondent did not claim CM(M) No.581/2010 Page 3 of 4 maintenance for seven years as she did not need it.
6. Quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court for the wife and the child is quite reasonable considering the minimum day to day expenses of the Respondent and the child and her educational expenses in the present scenario.
7. Hence, I find no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE APRIL 29, 2010 vk CM(M) No.581/2010 Page 4 of 4