Vijay Goel vs Natasha
2010 Latest Caselaw 2044 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CM (M) 373/2010

                                        Date of Decision: April 19, 2010

      VIJAY GOEL                             ..... Petitioner
                             Through:       Ms. Manju Sishodia, Advocate.

                    versus

      NATASHA                                  ..... Respondent
                             Through:       None.
      %
      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)

1. Parties to the petition were married according to Hindu Rites on

20.02.2007 at Delhi. After marriage number of disputes arose

between them. Since they could not continue to live together , they

separated and Petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 13

(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as „HM Act‟)

seeking divorce against the Respondent. In the said petition,

Respondent filed an application under Section 24 H.M. Act on

4.3.2009 and sought interim maintenance for herself. The said

application was allowed and the Trial Court awarded maintenance

@ Rs.2,500/- per month to the Respondent wife from the date of

filing of the application i.e. 4.3.2009 besides litigation expenses of

Rs.7,500/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, this

petition has been filed.

2. Trial Court after considering the salary slip of the Petitioner and also

the fact that a person who has been running a business in textiles till

30.11.2007 would become a Salesman for a meager salary of

Rs.4,000/- assessed his income at Rs.7,500/-. Para 6 of the

impugned order reads:-

"6. Though the Petitioner has placed the salary slip of Rs.4000/- showing his income as Salesman but it cannot be believed in view of the fact that the person who himself is running the business in textiles till 30.11.2007 have all of a sudden become a Salesman. This is common knowledge when the application under Section 24 HMA is filed the non applicant has a tendency to conceal his true income and it is all more difficult to know true income when persons are self employed or in unrecognized sector. The Petitioner for the purpose of anticipatory bail have arranged Rs. 3 lacs for the Respondent, which shows that he has

income and status in the society to arrange such a hefty amount. Therefore, in view of the status and standard of the petitioner and other circumstances I assess his income at Rs.7500/-."

3. Trial Court rightly considered the general attitude of husbands to

conceal their income especially when they are self employed or are

employed in some private sector and it becomes difficult for the

Court to assess their actual income. Even if, Petitioner, who had

been doing business of selling all sorts of interlining fabrics on

wholesale basis under the name and style „Vijay Textiles‟ at X-209,

Chabbra Market, Tagore Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi can definitely

be considered a semi-skilled labour if not skilled labour. Though a

person dealing in such like business learns expertise to understand

the business which he carried out, he claimed that he is a Salesman

with A-1, /Fabricators, IX/6198, Jain Mandir Gali No.2, Gandhi

Nagar, Delhi-31 and his income for a month would be generally

around Rs.5,850/- . It is pertinent that after revision of wages an

unskilled labour is entitled to get Rs.5272/- for a month and a semi-

skilled labour is entitled for Rs.5,850/- . Considering the minimum

wages payable to the Petitioner even if he is employed in private

service, he at present is earning about Rs.6,000/- per month. At the

time when the order was passed, he must be earning more

than Rs.5,000/- per month.

4. Trial court took into consideration the factum of Petitioner having

deposited Rs. 3 lacs in the criminal case registered against him on

behest of the Respondent for seeking his anticipatory bail. A man of

meager income of Rs.4,000/- under the circumstances would not be

financially capable of arranging Rs.3 lacs for the Respondent to

ensure grant of anticipatory bail.

5. 'Ritu Raj Kant vs. Anita, 154 (2008) DLT 505' relied upon by the

Petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of this

case. In the said case, it was observed that maintenance is to be

fixed on the basis of actual earning of a person and not on the basis

of his being able-bodied person. The Court also observed in that

case that there was no job guarantee given by the Govt. to every able

bodied person and many persons are jobless.

6. In this case, Petitioner is employed for gain and is a well bodied

person. Therefore, facts and circumstances of the said case and the

case before me are different in nature.

7. Under the circumstances, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order

of Trial Court which may need interference.

8. Hence, petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. CM

APPL Nos. 5069/2010 (for stay) and 5070/2010 (for exemption)

also stands disposed of.

(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE APRIL 19, 2010 vk