Mayank Sethi vs Guneet
2010 Latest Caselaw 2817 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CM(M) 742/2010

                                Date of Decision: May 28, 2010

      MAYANK SETHI                            ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Mr. Gaurav Seth, Adv.

                    versus

      GUNEET                               ..... 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) 742/2010 and CM APPL.10262/2010

1. Petitioner has impugned the order of the learned ADJ dated

28.04.2010, whereby on an application of the Respondent

wife, the Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2250/- per

month to her and Rs.1800/- per month to the minor child,

aged about two years, considering the income of the Petitioner

between Rs.9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month.

2. Mr. Gaurav Seth, counsel for the Petitioner has argued that

Petitioner is working as Sales Executive and is getting salary

of Rs.5,000/- per month and that the Respondent was

awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month in proceedings

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said order was never

challenged by the Respondent.

3. It is also argued that Court did not ask the Petitioner to file

any affidavit stating if he owned other immoveable assets, had

it been so, he would have filed an affidavit accordingly.

4. I find no force in the submissions made by the counsel for the

Petitioner. As per the case of the Petitioner himself, he is

Sales Executive in Aakash Enterprises. A general certificate

was issued by the employer indicating that Petitioner is

working in the said company since 2nd April, 2008 and is

drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, Petitioner

did not place on record any salary certificate to indicate the

actual amount he is receiving from his employer i.e. Aakash

Enterprises. Besides salary, being a Sales Executive, he must

be getting some sales commissions and other perks like

conveyance allowance, mobile/telephone expenses, etc.

Petitioner is absolutely silent about his commission on sales

and also other perks which he must be receiving from his

employer.

5. Trial Court also rightly noted that a person earning about

Rs.5,000/- cannot pay rent of Rs.1900/- per month and also

incur expenses of Rs.400/- per month on mobile. Petitioner

could do so only if he had substantial income from other

sources, may be like sales commissions etc.

6. It is noted that Petitioner was asked by the Trial Court to file

his bank statement for two years and also to state if he owned

any other moveable or immoveable property. Petitioner

neither produced the Bank statement nor filed any affidavit

indicating his moveable and immoveable assets. Naturally,

the Court drew an adverse inference against the Petitioner

observing that he was not disclosing his correct income.

7. It is of significance that the certificate placed on record does

not clearly indicate the status or the designation of the

Petitioner in the company. It is during the course of arguments

when asked, Petitioner stated that he is working as Sales

Executive.

8. Hence, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of

the Trial Court.

9. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

MAY 28, 2010 vk