Delhi High Court
Gurbhej Singh vs Preeti Kaur on 24 May, 2010
Author: Aruna Suresh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (MAIN) No.537/2009
Date of Decision: May 24, 2010
GURBHEJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O. P.Wadhwa, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
PREETI KAUR .... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate with
Respondent in person.
% 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.
CM (MAIN) No.537/2009 and CM APPL Nos.8108/2009 (stay) &
1987/2010 (u/s. 24 H.M. Act)
1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of the Additional District
Judge dated 23.03.2009, whereby on an application of Respondent
wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter
referred to as „Act‟), he assessed income of Petitioner husband at
Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per
month to the Respondent and also directed the Petitioner to pay
Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the
Trial Court failed to appreciate that Petitioner belongs to a lower
middle class family and earns his livelihood as a fortune teller and by
selling glass bangles, Rashi Nag, etc. and lives in a joint family and
that he has been visiting abroad with his father and brother on a
tourist visa and not for any business purpose. He suffered serious
injuries and is not capable of earning anything because of his
inability to walk properly. He further submitted that Respondent is
running her own boutique at her residence and is earning about
Rs.15,000/- per month. He denied that Petitioner is engaged in the
whole sale business of selling precious stones, gems etc. His
submissions have been refuted by Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, counsel for
the Respondent.
3. Petitioner had placed on record his income tax return for the
assessment year of 2007-2008, before the Trial Court, according to
which his annual income is shown at Rs.1,12,600/- and it is under the
Head 'Salaries from Rashmi Gems & Stone, Profits and Gains from
Business and profession, commission for sale of precious stone'.
4. His Bank statement of account, produced before the Trial Court,
indicate that in the beginning of January, 2008 he had a balance of
Rs.3,84,272/- in his account. He visited Singapore, Switzerland
from 15.6.2006 to 27.7.2006 and from 22.3.2006 to 21.6.2006;
Germany in 2006 and Netherlands on 15.1.2008 and 15.9.2008. The
Court took into consideration all these documents to come to the
conclusion that his income was around Rs.50,000/- per month.
5. Petitioner does not dispute that he had visited abroad. But he has
claimed that he went with his father and brother, at the expenses of
his father on a tourist visa. Copies of the visas placed on record
indicate that Petitioner visited above-said countries on a short visit
for tourism purposes and it was made clear that it was not valid for
employment. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is difficult to
find out if Petitioner had visited abroad for the purposes of his
business. As per the income tax return, he is taxed as a salaried
person and his income has been computed accordingly. He had
some commission from sale of precious stones and his gross total
income is shown to be at Rs.1,12,600/-. Even if it is assumed that
Petitioner is a salaried man and has some income from sale of
precious stones, etc. the basis of assessment of his income at
Rs.50,000/- per month by the Trial Court seems to be incorrect.
6. In 'K.Lalchandani vs. Menu Lalchandani, 1997 (6) AD (Delhi) 44',
it was observed in para 9 as under:-
" 9. It cannot be said that the Court has only
to consider the bare minimum requirements of
the wife and the children but they have to put
almost at the same position as they would have
en-joyed had there been no separation between
the spouses. It need hardly be said that the wife
and the children have to be put on the same
position as the petitioner/husband/father and the
amount of maintenance to be awarded u/Secs.
24-26 of the Act has to be in tune with their
status and the mode of living to which they were
used to before separation between the spouses
and the wife and the children accorded the same
standard of living which they enjoyed till the
date of separation. It may also be seen that there
are as many as 15 litigations relating to the
properties between the petitioner and the
respondent. It cannot be again said that the
litigation in the present days is a costly
proposition. The amount with the
respondent/wife would obviously be spent in
these litigations and therefore, she cannot be
said to possess independent income sufficient
for the support and the necessary expenses of
these proceedings. A broad view of the facts
emerging from the record has to be taken for the
purpose of striking a just balance in awarding
the amount pendente lite u/Sec. 24 of the Act
having regard to the facts and circumstances,
emerging from the record."
7. Considering the present financial as well as physical status of the
Petitioner, his income is reasonably assessed at Rs.20,000/- per
month.
8. Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall pay maintenance @
Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the initial application
i.e. 23.10.2008 besides litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-. The
impugned order of the Trial Court dated 23.03.2009 stands modified
accordingly.
9. Arrears of maintenance shall be cleared by the Petitioner within two
months in two equal installments beginning from 1st June, 2010.
Petitioner is entitled to adjustment of any payment already made to
the Respondent towards maintenance.
10. Attested copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court forthwith.
ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
MAY 24, 2010
vk
