Raj Kumar vs Parvati
2010 Latest Caselaw 474 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) 118/2010

                                  Date of Decision: January 28, 2010

      RAJ KUMAR                         ..... Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.

                                  versus

      PARVATI                                         ..... 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?

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

                        JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.1716/2010 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 118/2010 and CM APPL.1715/2010 (stay)

1. Parties to the petition were married on 20.02.2008 at Delhi.

They started living separately just after about four months of

the marriage due to disputes and differences which arose

amongst them. This resulted into filing of a petition under

Section 13 (1) (i-a) & (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by the husband Raj Kumar

seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree for divorce

along with an application under Section 14 of the Act.

Application of the Petitioner under Section 14 of the Act was

allowed.

2. During the proceedings of the divorce petition, respondent

wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking

grant of maintenance pendent lite and litigation expenses from

the Petitioner, husband.

3. Trial Court after taking into consideration the status of the

Petitioner, and his capacity to earn as well as his Bank

statement, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-

per month as maintenance from the date of the filing of the

application i.e. 19.5.2009 and another sum of Rs.8,000/-

towards litigation expenses. It was also observed by the Court

that if any amount was being received by the Respondent wife

as maintenance in any other proceedings, the same shall be

adjustable against the amount awarded by the Court.

4. Dissatisfied by the order of the trial court dated 1.10.2009,

present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

has been filed.

5. Bank Statement of the Petitioner indicated some substantial

deposits made on different dates from March, 2008 till April,

2009. The trial court, therefore, considered and assessed the

income of the Petitioner as not less than Rs.7,000/- to 10,000/-

per month. A person having monthly income of Rs.3,000/-,

as claimed by the Petitioner, cannot have substantial amount

at his disposal to be deposited in the account. Bank statement

of account, therefore, indicated that besides the income as

disclosed by the Petitioner, he has other source of income as

well.

6. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which

may warrant interference. Hence, I find no merits in this

petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE)

JANUARY 28, 2010 vk