Delhi High Court
Sonika vs Lokesh Kaushik on 6 May, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 608/2010
Date of Decision: May 06, 2010
SONIKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K.Goel, Advocate.
versus
LOKESH KAUSHIK ..... 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) 608/2010 and CM APPL No.8410/2010 (exemption)
1. In a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act
(hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) for annulment of marriage
filed by the Respondent husband, Petitioner moved an
application under Section 24 and 26 of the Act. Considering
the income of the Respondent, Trial Court vide its order dated
24.08.2006 was pleased to award maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-
per month to the Petitioner wife and Rs.1500/- per month to
the minor child.
2. There was hike in the salary of the Respondent in view of 6th
Pay Commission. This resulted into another application by the
petitioner seeking enhancement of maintenance for herself
and for the child. In the meantime, child was got admitted in
a school for which tuition fee is about Rs.1500/- per month
and the same is being paid by the Petitioner. This application
was dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated
05.02.2010 with the following observations:-
"5. Applicant/wife has sought maintenance
of Rs.20,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for
minor child. However, no other document has
been placed on record by applicant to show the
increase in expenses except two fee receipts of
minor child. According to fee receipt, the
tuition fee of the child is about Rs.1500/- per
month. On the other hand petitioner has placed
on record his salary slip according to which his
net monthly salary is Rs.11,686/- per month and
from this amount petitioner is already paying
Rs.3500/- to the respondent and minor child.
6. After taking into account the fact that
petition is already paying payment of
maintenance and that no document has been
placed on record by the applicant for
enhancement of expenses except fee of the
minor child; thirdly the fact that petitioner is
pursuing further education in order to better
prospects in life, I consider it appropriate to
partly allow the application of the
applicant/wife. Application of the
respondent/wife is partly allowed to the effect
that petitioner is directed to enhance
maintenance of minor child from Rs.1500/- to
Rs.2500/- for the fact that education expenses of
the child has increased, from the date of the
application till the disposal of the petition....."
3. Mr. V.K.Goel, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that
Petitioner and her minor child are dependent upon her parents
and since after the death of her father, there is no income in
the hands of her family members to meet her expenses as
well. It is argued that Respondent did not disclose his true
income as besides his salary he earns about Rs.10,000/- by
running a commercial institute under the name and style of
Britannica through someone else. Besides, he has a rental
income and is earning about Rs.40,000/- per month. He urged
that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the income of
the Respondent while deciding the application.
4. Admittedly, Respondent is employed as a Constable with
Delhi Police. His pay slip for the month of June, 2009
indicates that he is getting net income of Rs.11,686/-. Basic
salary of the Respondent is Rs.7320/-, his Grade Pay is
Rs.2,000/-, DA Rs.2050/- and HRA Rs.2796/-. Besides, he is
getting certain other allowances which are towards his
conveyance allowance, ration money, Metropolitan City
allowance, etc. These allowances are actually spent by the
Respondent in due performance of his duties. Therefore,
allowances which are paid for actual consumption cannot be
treated as income. Besides, the deductions also indicate that
they are all compulsory in nature. A sum of Rs.2,000/- is
being deducted from the salary of the Respondent by virtue of
Court attachment. Thus, after entire deduction, Respondent is
left with net salary of Rs.11,686/-.
5. A person who is employed in Govt. service cannot carry on
any other activities for gain. Petitioner has not disclosed the
name of the person through whom Respondent is allegedly
running alleged commercial institute under the name and style
of Britannica. It may be that Respondent has no concern with
the same. Similarly, it is not disclosed as to from where
Respondent is having rental income. Respondent in his reply
has denied that he has any rental income.
6. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record and
income of the Respondent, the Trial Court rightly enhanced
maintenance of the child from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/- and
refused to enhance maintenance for the Petitioner. Now,
maintenance payable to the Petitioner for herself and her child
comes to Rs.4,500/- per month.
7. Considering the income of the Respondent, the Trial Court
has balanced the equity while awarding the maintenance.
8. Hence, I find no merits in this petition, the same is
accordingly dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
MAY 06, 2010
vk
