Delhi High Court
Smt. Suman vs Shri Anil Kumar on 2 March, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 278/2010 & CM Nos.3805 /2010 & ..../2010
Date of Decision: March 02, 2010
SMT. SUMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.R. Bhatia and Mr.K.C.
Bajaj, Advocates.
versus
SHRI ANIL KUMAR ..... 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. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court
dated 30th January 2010, whereby application of the petitioner under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HM
Act') seeking maintenance for herself and for the child, Tushar Bhatt
was partly allowed. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the claim of
the petitioner on the ground that she was employed for gain and
keeping in mind the income of the spouses, awarded maintenance for
the child aged about 7 years at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
he had settled his fees at Rs.33,000/- to be paid by the petitioner,
whereas Trial Court has awarded only Rs.3,300/- towards litigation
expenses. He has urged that under these circumstances, respondent
is liable to contribute more towards litigation expenses; otherwise
petitioner is not financially stable to pay him the fees, as agreed.
3. While awarding cost of litigation, terms and conditions
settled inter se the party and her counsel have no bearing on the mind
of the court as court has to assess the circumstances of each case and
financial capability of the parties to decide the quantum of litigation
expenses, which it may award to the spouse seeking maintenance
under Section 24 of HM Act along with litigation expenses. I find
no reason to interfere in the litigation expenses awarded by the Trial
Court, simply because the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.33,000/- to
her advocate.
4. Needless to say that petitioner being woman, if not
employed, is entitled to free legal aid services from Delhi Legal
Services Authority. Therefore, if petitioner has chosen in her
wisdom to engage the services of an expensive lawyer, it is for her to
see how to meet litigation expenses and pay fees of her advocate.
5. Admittedly, petitioner is employed for gain and as per
her own case, she is earning about Rs.3,400/- per month. Her son is
residing at Rampur District, Pauri Garwal, whereas she herself is
employed for gain in Delhi. Respondent claimed that he was earning
about Rs.4,000/- per month. Besides salary slips, Trial Court had no
other documentary evidence to indicate that respondent was having
any additional income from other sources. Keeping in mind income
of the respondent and balancing the income of the parties, Trial
Court, to my mind, rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
Since child is to be brought up according to the status of his parents,
the Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month for the
child. According to the petitioner herself, she is sending Rs.3,000/-
per month to Rampur for upbringing of her son. Therefore, Trial
Court in its wisdom rightly granted Rs.1,200/- per month as
maintenance for the child.
6. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
CM Nos.3805 /2010 (for stay) & ....../2010 (for exemption)
7. Registry is directed to assign number to the application
seeking exemption.
Since petitioner has been dismissed, both applications have
become infructuous and the same are dismissed accordingly.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
MARCH 02, 2010
sb
