Rajesh Shahi vs Rima Shahi @ Rima Singh
2005 Latest Caselaw 1678 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. CM(M) 122/2004 is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge in HMA 336/2001 whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 14.01.2004 has decided the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, together with Rs. 15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) as litigation expenses.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fixation of this amount has been purely on conjectures and on the face of the evidence on record, namely, the income tax returns, the trial court could not have taken any other material into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is earning or is capable of earning about Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) per month. He submits that a judgment of this court in Ashwani Makin v. Neelam Makin, 1993, Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 88 is an authority on the subject.

3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand contends that from the petitioner's pleading, it is apparent that he was earning, while in Singapore, Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) per month and is a Mechanical Engineer. She submits that the petitioner now is self employed and is servicing ships that come into Mumbai Port. She submits that subsequent to the filing of the petition it has come to the knowledge that there was an income tax raid on the petitioner resulting in unearthing other incomes, which fact the petitioner concealed from this court as well as the trial court. She also contends that the petitioner is not only capable of earning Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per month but is earning much more than Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) per month. She says that precedence has been quoted by the trial court to support its findings which should not be interfered with by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. It appears to me that the learned trial court has by sound reasoning come to a conclusion that the petitioner is certainly earning or is capable of earning at least Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per month. It may also be added that the petitioner in CM(M) 500/2005, which is a petition inter se parties, offered to pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-(rupees twelve lakhs) by way of a settlement. In view thereof, I see no reason why the petitioner should not be able to support the respondent by paying Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) a month.

5. In that view of the matter, I dismiss CM(M) 122/2004 & CM.APPL.1089/2004.