Mukesh @ Gajraj Singh vs Smt. Meena
2010 Latest Caselaw 2424 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM (M) 420/2010

                             Date of Decision: May 05, 2010

      MUKESH @ GAJRAJ SINGH                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. R.P.Shukla, Advocate.
               versus
      SMT. MEENA                          ..... 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)

CM (M) 420/2010 and CM APPL Nos.5771-72/2010

1. On an application of the Respondent filed under Section 24 of

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

the divorce petition, the Court vide impugned order dated 10 th

December, 2009 awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per

month to the Respondent from the date of the application i.e.

4.1.2008, besides litigation expenses of Rs.6,000/-. Aggrieved

by the said order, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner

husband.

2. Mr. R.P. Shukla counsel for the Petitioner has urged that

parties to the petition were married on 9.7.1999. The marriage

was never consummated but a male child was born to the

Respondent on 24.7.2007 and therefore the Trial Court

committed an error in awarding maintenance to the

Respondent.

3. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. However,

Petitioner has disputed that he is not the father of the child,

born on 24.7.2007.

4. Petitioner has already filed an application for DNA test in

order to prove the paternity of the child. While awarding

maintenance, the Court did consider that Petitioner disputed

the paternity of the child. The Court is within its right to get

the DNA test of the minor child as well as of the parties to the

petition done to ascertain the paternity of the child. The Trial

Court, if has not yet passed an appropriate order on the

application of the Petitioner, shall do the needful on the next

date of hearing fixed before it.

5. As regards maintenance for the Respondent, the Court took

into consideration the fact that Petitioner is getting monthly

salary of Rs.5,000/- besides other consequential benefits. He

owns a motorcycle and also Rs.700/- to 800/- per month as

overtime, besides conveyance allowance which is about

Rs.15/- per day. The Trial Court assessed the income of the

Petitioner as not less than Rs.6,000/- per month and

accordingly awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to

the Respondent. It is noted that no maintenance has been

awarded to the child.

6. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order, when the

Court has awarded maintenance within the ambit of principles

of law under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence,

petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

7. Attested copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court through

special messenger forthwith.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

MAY 05, 2010/vk