Delhi High Court
Ms. Gayatri Devi vs Mr. Shiv Kumar on 21 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 VIAD Delhi 797 b, 2002 (62) DRJ 740, 2002 RLR 570
Author: S Kapoor
Bench: S Kapoor
JUDGMENT
S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. Heard both the parties on the point of amount
of the maintenance. The total income of the
respondent, Mr. Shiv Kumar is Rs.14,258/- and the
total income of the petitioner, Ms. Gayatri Devi, is
Rs.7,539/- as per the salary certificate relating to
February, 1999 and December, 2001 which is on record.
There is an unmarried sister of the husband who is
dependent on the appellant.
2. It is also not in dispute that the appellant
has refused to live with the respondent and even did
not file any application for claiming that the
defendant should be restrained from marrying. In the
meanwhile, the respondent/husband has again married and
there is one son with the (second) wife.
3. In the aforementioned circumstances, if the
entire income is to spent prudently in larger interest
of each of the family members, it has to be considered
in units according to comparative needs of each of
them. Daughter of the appellant with the first wife is
13 years and the son is 14 years. The son from the
second wife is 1/2 years. In case one takes one unit
for sister, one unit for the husband, one unit for the
appellant and two children through first wife, one unit
for the lady who had married subsequently and half unit
for the child through the second wife, then it comes to
6-1/2 units. Since daughter from the first wife is 13
years of age, the father is supposed to make some
savings for the marriage of the daughter and half unit
should be meant for the family savings for this
specific purpose. Thus, income could spread over seven
units. It is stated that the husband has got a
provisional insurance policy of Rs.1,00,000/-. A
photocopy of the same is being filed by the learned
Counsel for the respondent and it is sought to be
finalised.
4. In the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the
income of both the parties may be taken safely at Rs.
22,000/- per month, it appears that in all the
appellant should have at least Rs.9,000/- P.M. to
maintain herself and her son and the daughter. She is
already getting Rs.7,539/-. Therefore, it may be
appropriate to increase the amount of maintenance from
Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- taking into consideration the
point of insurance policy for the purpose of education
and marriage of the daughter of the parties. It is
also expected from both the parties that the future
increases shall be invested for the purpose of meeting
the expenditure in case of illness, marriage of the son
and daughter etc.
5. The husband is accordingly directed to pay
Rs.1,500/- P.M. Along with filing an affidavit that he
would not be withdrawing anything beyond 50% out of the
Provident Fund amount and keep the policy alive for the
purpose of marriage of the daughter and any other
expenditure which may be necessary for the maintenance
and education etc. of the children through the first
wife. 50% amount of the Provident Fund and the savings
may be used by the husband to meet the similar
contingencies in respect of illness etc. as well as
for the education and bringing-up of the son through
the second wife and other family members. The
applicant as well as the respondent shall file an
affidavit within a week that they shall use all further
increases in their income for the purpose of savings to
meet the above contingencies. This order is being
passed with the consent of both the parties. The
application under Section 24 is disposed of accordingly.
6. List on 22nd March, 2002.
