Sh. Manish Jain vs Smt. Sangeeta Jain
2010 Latest Caselaw 2974 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CM(M) No.823/2010 & CM No.11086/2010

                                  Date of Decision: June 04, 2010

       SH. MANISH JAIN                               ..... Petitioner
                              Through:    Mr.Subodh Kumar,
                                          Advocate.
                     versus


       SMT. SANGEETA JAIN                             ..... 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 on 11th May, 2005

according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Since parties quarrelled

with each other, they could not live together and started living

separately. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for

restitution of the conjugal rights. Respondent filed an application

under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance from the

petitioner during pendency of the said petition.

2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 1 st May, 2010

allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per

month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application i.e.

17th December, 2009 besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed this petition.

3. Mr. Subodh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has submitted that Trial Court went wrong while awarding

maintenance as it did not take into consideration the expenses of the

petitioner and therefore, maintenance awarded to the respondent is

on the higher side and beyond the capacity of the petitioner.

4. I find no force in his submissions. Petitioner is

employed as Account Assistant in LG and Dr. Associates Pvt. Ltd.

His monthly salary is Rs.14,250/-. Petitioner claimed that he is

paying rent of Rs.4,000/- per month to his landlord since 1st August

2009, as he is residing in WZ-809, Near Bata Chowk, Palam vihar,

New Delhi. While considering expenses of the petitioner towards

rent, Trial Court noted that address given by the petitioner in the

petition is C-6-A/30A, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It also noted that

affidavit attached with the reply to the application also finds the

same address of the petitioner as given in the main petition. Under

these circumstances, to my mind, Trial Court rightly observed that

petitioner made endeavour to conceal his actual income and with a

view to avoid payment of maintenance, he tried to mislead the court

by stating that he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month as rent for the

tenanted premises. Trial Court also took into consideration the

entries made in the pass book of the petitioner pertaining to his bank

account where it noted that petitioner was saving some money every

month in the said account.

5. In view of these facts, I find no infirmity or illegality in

the order of the Trial Court. Trial Court was right in refusing to

accept the alleged expenses disclosed by the petitioner in his reply.

There cannot be two opinion that petitioner made every effort to

conceal his correct income. Under these circumstances, I find no

merits in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.

CM No.11086/2010 (for exemption)

6. Since petition has been dismissed, this application has

become infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed accordingly.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) JUNE 04, 2010/sb