Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Rakhi Maheshwari on 22 March, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 384/2010
Date of Decision: March 22, 2010
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Santosh, Adv.
with Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
RAKHI MAHESHWARI ..... 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)
CM APPL.5340/2010 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 384/2010 and CM APPL.5339/2010 (stay)
1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated
24.10.2009 whereby it granted interim maintenance @
Rs.2,500/- to the wife and the minor child respectively i.e.
total sum of Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as H.M. Act), besides
litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Trial
Court while awarding interim maintenance did not properly
consider the salary of the Petitioner which is only Rs.4,773/-
per month. Maintenance awarded is more than his salary
whereas Respondent wife is employed as a teacher in a
private school and is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per
month and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the
child.
3. Respondent claimed herself to be unemployed when she filed
an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act seeking
maintenance for herself and her minor child, who is in her
custody. She alleged that Petitioner is drawing a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month as he is working as Accountant in
Gayatri Steel Fabricators, Mayur Vihar.
4. Petitioner has placed on record photocopy of his salary
certificate to show that he is drawing a salary of Rs.4,700/-
per month. However, he admitted that he owns a motorcycle
and mobile phone. When asked, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the motorcycle has been purchased
by the Petitioner after getting it financed. However, there is
nothing on record to suggest that motorcycle owned by the
Petitioner is financed. Besides, a person drawing a salary of
Rs.4,773/- per month cannot pay installments of the amount
taken on loan by him for purchasing the vehicle. He is also
maintaining mobile for which he must be paying regular bills.
His mobile expenses are not substantiated by way of any
document like bills raised on him by the concerned Cellular
Company. No document is placed on record to indicate that
Respondent is employed as a teacher and is earning amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. Under these circumstances, Trial Court rightly held that
Petitioner had not disclosed his actual income. From the
status of living of the Petitioner, it is obvious that, besides his
salary as projected to the court, he must be having additional
income from other sources. A person earning Rs.4,700/- per
month cannot afford to have a status of living which the
Petitioner is maintaining.
6. To my mind, approach of the Trial Court was right in
assessing the income of the Petitioner while granting
maintenance to the Respondent and the minor child. In no
manner, the quantum of interim maintenance awarded can be
considered as on the higher side.
7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
MARCH 22, 2010
vk
