Vijay Singh vs Usha
2010 Latest Caselaw 674 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    CM(M) 173/2010

                                Date of Decision: 5th February, 2010

       VIJAY SINGH                        ..... Petitioner
                 Through:           Mr. Niraj Chaudhary, Adv.
                                    with Petitioner in person.
                     versus

       USHA                              ..... 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?
     (3)      Whether the judgment should be reported
              in the Digest ?

                         JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce against his wife, the

respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act

(hereinafter referred to as 'HM Act'). In the said petition,

respondent filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act

seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the

petition.

2. Trial court vide impugned order dated 19.11.2009 was

pleased to award maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the

Respondent wife from the date of the filing of the application

and another sum of Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, present petition has been filed by

the Petitioner.

4. Petitioner in his statement recorded on oath as PW-1 by the

court has stated that he is earning a sum of Rs.3,246/-. In his

cross examination, he admitted that there are two shops in the

property in which he is residing and both the shops have been

rented out to two tenants. He also admitted that they were

getting Rs.1500/- each from the tenants as rent.

5. The trial court on the basis of this admission of the Petitioner

assessed the income of the Petitioner to Rs.6,300/- per month

and accordingly awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per

month. True that, the trial court while assessing the rental

income of the Petitioner as Rs.3,000/- did not take into

consideration the fact that the Petitioner's individual rental

income was Rs.1500/- only. Therefore, the trial court did

commit a mistake in coming to the conclusion that the total

monthly income of the Petitioner, as per his own saying was

Rs.6,300/-.

6. When rental income of the Petitioner is added to his salary of

Rs.3,300/-, his total income comes to Rs.4,800/- per month.

Assessing monthly income of the Petitioner to be Rs.4,800/-

per month, the amount of maintenance as awarded by the trial

court @ Rs.2,000/- per month is a reasonable amount.

7. I find no reason to interfere in the order of the trial court,

except the necessary correction which was required to be

made. Hence, petition being without any merit is hereby

dismissed.

8. CM APPL Nos.2255-56/2010 also stand dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 05, 2010 vk