Delhi High Court
Kunal Bose vs Smt. Anita Bose on 19 May, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 691/2010
Date of Decision: 19th May, 2010
KUNAL BOSE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pritpal Singh, Adv. with
Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
SMT. ANITA BOSE ..... 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) 691/2010 and CM APPL.9374/2010 (stay)
1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for declaring
by a decree of nullity of the marriage between him and the
Respondent alleging that before marrying the Petitioner,
Respondent was already married to one Mr. Bhim Singh Negi
and was having three children from him. She concealed this
fact at the time of solemnizing her marriage with him. In the
said petition, Respondent filed an application under Section
24 of the Act claiming pendent lite maintenance from the
Petitioner.
2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2010 was pleased
to award maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Respondent from the date of filing of the application i.e.
15.4.2008 and also directed the Petitioner to pay litigation
expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner has filed this petition.
4. It is argued by Mr. Pritpal Singh counsel for the Petitioner
that Petitioner is unemployed for the last about five years and
has no source of income. He is a patient of epilepsy and has
no money to purchase medicine for his treatment. Since
Respondent was already married at the time when she married
the Petitioner, she is not entitled to any maintenance as
claimed by her. Her spouse from her earlier marriage is alive
and she is living with him and this fact was not disclosed to
the Petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to any
maintenance as claimed by her.
5. Petitioner admits having married the Respondent on
19.6.2002. As per the case of the Petitioner, Respondent is
older than him in age. He admits that marriage was
consummated. It is also admitted that a case under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC has been registered by the Respondent
against him in which charges under Section 406 IPC have
been framed and he is facing trial.
6. Trial Court observed that Petitioner was employed with HCL
as an HR Manager on a monthly salary of Rs.10,500/-.
Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has
resigned from the services and presently he is unemployed.
No document was placed by the Petitioner in the Trial Court
or even in this Court to substantiate his argument that he had
left the services of HCL in 2007 and was unemployed.
Similarly, no document has been placed on record to indicate
that he is suffering from epilepsy and the medical expenses
which he has to bear for his treatment every month. Petitioner
has neither disclosed in reply to the petition nor has been able
to tell the court, the name of the doctor or the hospital from
whom and from where he is getting himself treated.
7. Under these circumstances, in my view the Trial Court rightly
assessed the income of the Petitioner to be around Rs.10,000/-
per month akin to his last salary drawn from his employer
HCL. According to the Respondent, Petitioner owns
immoveable property and has rental income which fact is
disputed by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the Trial Court
rightly assessed the monthly income of the Petitioner while
awarding maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Respondent besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
8. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order to
exercise my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
9. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
MAY 19, 2010
vk
