Delhi High Court
Amit Tyagi vs Deepa Tyagi on 28 April, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 572/2010
Date of Decision: April 28, 2010
AMIT TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
DEEPA TYAGI ..... 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) 572/2010 and CM APPL Nos.7808-09/2010
1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of
the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'H.M.
Act') seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as
desertion. During the pendency of the said petition,
Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act
and sought interim maintenance for herself and her daughter
Niharika, aged about 4 years. The Trial Court vide impugned
order dated 19.02.2010, awarded maintenance @ Rs.5,000/-
per month to the Respondent wife and Rs.2,500/- per month
to the minor daughter w.e.f. 02.07.2009, the date of filing of
the application. Trial Court also awarded litigation expenses
of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court,
this petition has been filed.
2. Petitioner husband is an Engineer, might be a Diploma
Holder. He was employed in IJM (India) Infrastructure
Limited. Though, he claimed that his services were
terminated on 14.08.2007 and since thereafter he is
unemployed, the Trial Court, considering his qualifications as
well as his previous employment as an Engineer, disbelieved
that he was unemployed. The Court also observed that an
electrical business is being run in the name and style of M/s.
Parul Electricals. In his wedding card, name of M/s. Parul
Electricals and M/s. Satyam Electricals have been mentioned
as R.S.V.P. Petitioner alleged that he has nothing to do with
any of the said firms, which are owned by his father. In the
absence of any documents, the Trial Court rightly observed
that Petitioner was concealing his true income and therefore
was not believable. A person qualified as an Engineer cannot
in any manner be considered dependent on his parents. If he
is not employed with any other firm he must be working in
the firm owned by his father.
3. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court was right when it
awarded maintenance to the wife and the child. Petitioner did
raise a defence that Respondent being well educated was
employed and was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month.
However, he could not substantiate his averments and
therefore, the Trial court did not believe that Respondent was
employed for gain, especially when Respondent had denied
that she was employed for gain.
4. It is not in dispute that Petitioner is a skilled labour. Being an
Engineer, he might not be governed by the Minimum Wages
Act, as is applicable to a workman. However, to assess his
minimum income, Court can consider the Minimum Wages
payable to a skilled Labour under the said Act. It seems that
Petitioner avoided correct disclosure of his income with a
view to avoid his liability to pay maintenance to his wife and
child.
5. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
of the Trial court, which needs any interference. Maintenance
awarded by the Court is just and fair, based on equitable
assessment of the income of the Petitioner.
6. Hence, I find no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2010
vk
