Delhi High Court
Sh. Jas Pal Singh vs Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on 29 April, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 581/2010
Date of Decision: April 29, 2010
SH. JAS PAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Adv. with
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
versus
SMT. GURMEET KAUR ..... 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) 581/2010 and CM APPL.7918/2010 (stay)
1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated
24.02.2010, whereby on an application of the Respondent,
learned ADJ granted interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per
month cumulatively to the wife and the daughter, namely,
Rasleen, from the date of the application i.e. 12.08.2009,
besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-
2. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Trial Court did not
correctly assess his income while awarding maintenance. He
claimed that he is earning only Rs.2,500/- per month as a
commission agent in a Brokerage Firm and does not own any
moveable or immoveable property. He resides with his
parents whereas Respondent wife is running a Boutique and is
earning about Rs.25,000/- per month. She is also residing in
the matrimonial home.
3. Admittedly, Petitioner did not place any proof on record to
show that he is earning only Rs.2,500/- per month as
commission and has no other source of income. The Court
observed that none of the parties produced any proof to
support their respective contentions. Finding itself at a loss to
appreciate the submissions of the parties, Court indulged into
guess work. Considering the fact that Petitioner was working
as a Commission Agent, the Trial Court, in my view, rightly
awarded interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- cumulatively to
the wife and the daughter.
4. Mr. R.K.Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner has emphasized
that parties to the petition started living separately since 2003
and the application was filed only in 2009. He has argued that
since Respondent was not in need of any maintenance, she did
not make any claim for the same and therefore, the conduct of
the Respondent clearly indicates that she is working for gain,
may be that she is running a Boutique. I find no force in these
submissions.
5. Respondent did not take any legal step against the Petitioner
and probably waited silently for him to resolve the dispute. It
was only when Petitioner filed divorce petition, she claimed
maintenance for herself and the child and also litigation
expenses. If Respondent had any intention to harass the
Petitioner or to pressurize him, she would have filed a
criminal complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, or a
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Simply because Petitioner
avoided to take his responsibility of maintaining his wife and
the child and Respondent did not force him to do so, he
cannot be absolved of his liability to maintain his wife and
child by taking a plea that Respondent did not claim
maintenance for seven years as she did not need it.
6. Quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court for the
wife and the child is quite reasonable considering the
minimum day to day expenses of the Respondent and the
child and her educational expenses in the present scenario.
7. Hence, I find no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2010
vk
