Kiran Sejwal vs Yesh Dev Singh Sejwal
2006 Latest Caselaw 2034 Del

JUDGMENT

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses with effect from the date of the application in favor of the petitioner-wife. The petitioner has sought enhancement of the maintenance through this petition. Notice of the petition was repeatedly sent to the respondent and his father. It was also published in the Statesmen but none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. I have heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. Briefly the facts are that the parties were married on 23.10.2000 according to Hindu Rites at Delhi. They resided together in the matrimonial home at Delhi till 29.10.2000 and again from July, 2001 to December, 2001. The respondent is doing some job at Netherlands. It seems the parties could not pull well together. The respondent-husband sought divorce in Netherlands and the petitioner complained to the police. An FIR under Sections 406/498A, IPC has been registered against the respondents, his parents and his relatives.

4. The petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and in that petition also moved an application for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The said application was contested. She alleged that the respondent was employed as a Manager in a German firm and was drawing more than Rs. 1,50,000/- (INR) per month and was also running a hotel. He was owning property at Netherlands as well as at Delhi. His total income was Rs. 2.50 lacs per month. She pleaded that she herself was a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering but was without job.

5. In the reply the respondent denied these allegations. The husband denied that she was a legally wedded wife and alleged that the marriage was void because the petitioner was already married with one Ravi with whom she lived for six months, which marriage was not dissolved and that the petitioner and her parents trapped the respondent and his family for greed. That is why he has sought annulment of marriage and further alleged that before marriage she being a qualified engineer was doing a good job in a company. He pleaded that he was getting only Rs. 15,000/- per month out of which Rs. 5,000/- was being paid as rent. He alleged that she had taken Rs. 5 lacs from her first husband also.

6. In the rejoinder the averments in the application were reaffirmed and it was stated that she was only engaged to Mr. Ravi, which engagement was broken and no marriage was performed and that she was never employed. She submitted some documents to show the income of respondent and the respondent also submitted some documents in support of his income.

7. Considering the allegations and counter allegations, the background of the families, the status of the parties, the period for which they lived together and other somewhat peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses in the facts and circumstances, are quite reasonable. I may mention that in a way only an interim order has been passed and the learned Additional District Judge has dealt with all the aspects of the matter and has also perused the documents submitted by the parties and has passed a well reasoned order.

8. In my view, there is no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court so as to invite interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

9. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.