Delhi High Court
Rahul Sethi vs Neha Sethi on 11 November, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
03.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 803/2010
% Date of Judgment 11th November, 2010
RAHUL SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Anil Kumar Thakur, Adv. along with the
petitioner.
versus
NEHA SETHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Dr. R.S. Saran, Adv. along with the
respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the Judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2010
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an
application filed by the respondent wife under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act in HMA No.242/2009 whereby the petitioner
husband was directed to pay to the respondent @ `10,000/-, per
month, as maintenance, w.e.f. the date of filing of the present
petition i.e. 27.7.2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 30.3.2009. Parties are stated to have resided
together only for a period of two months after which parties have
been residing separately. It is not in dispute that petitioner
husband had filed a petition being HMA No.242/2009 under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights
and during the pendency of this petition the respondent had filed
an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
maintenance. The said petition under Section 9 has since been
dismissed for non-prosecution. The application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the trial court has
directed the petitioner husband to pay maintenance to the
respondent wife @ `10,000/-, per month, w.e.f. the date of filing of
the application i.e. 27.7.2009.
3. Notice in this matter was not issued, however, only a direction
was issued to the respondent to remain present in court with a
view to explore the possibility of a settlement taking into
consideration the age of the parties and the fact that parties
stayed together only for a period of two months. Today, it is
submitted by counsel for the parties that there is no possibility of
any settlement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
student and he has no independent source of income. Counsel
further submits that learned trial court has come to an erroneous
decision based on an invitation card of the marriage receiption, a
copy of which has been filed at page 64 of the paper book, which
shows the various business activities of the petitioner. Counsel
also submits that business activities are not being carried out by
the petitioner who is only a student.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned
order dated 19.4.2010 passed by learned trial court. Learned trial
court has considered the rival contentions of both the parties
wherein the respondent wife had asserted that petitioner is a
member of joint family and is running the joint family business.
The family is residing at property bearing no.B-35, Sharda Puri,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, which is owned by them. It has further
been asserted before the trial court that petitioner is running a
flourishing business of medicines apart from other business and is
earning `52000/- to `55000/-, per month. Further the family of the
petitioner owns four vehicles apart from a motor cycle which is for
exclusive use of the petitioner. It has also been averred that
petitioner has also got a share in Rishi Medicos from which he is
earning `30,000/- to `35,000/-, thus, showing the total income of
the petitioner between `80,000/- to `90,000/-, per month. In reply
to the application, the petitioner husband had asserted that he is
a student of LL.B. from Meerut University and is dependent upon
his parents. He also denied that he owns property and is running a
business. However, the petitioner has admitted before the trial
court that the motor-cycle was purchased by his parents for his
personal use.
6. Learned trial court while considering the application under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has taken into consideration the
facts of the case and also the settled position of law as laid down
in the case of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported at I
(2007) DMC 815.
7. Petitioner, who is present in Court, does not dispute that he had
taken admission in the LL.B. three years course since the year
2005-2006, however, he has not been able to clear the same. He
submits that he has not been supported by his parents but now he
is carrying on a small business of supply of goods to chemists.
8. While learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has no source of income and he is only a student pursuing LL.B.
course, learned counsel for the respondent, while placing reliance
on the marriage invitation card, has strongly urged before this
Court that petitioner is a man of means. It is submitted by counsel
for the respondent that invitation card suggests that petitioner
belongs to a business family, who are carrying on various
businesses such as Sethi Property dealers, Maa Rani Restaurant
and Banquet, Rishi Medicos, Cheap and Best Tailors, Syndicate
Pharmaceuticals and Sethi Service Station.
9. During the hearing of this matter, petitioner, who is present in
Court has stated that he is carrying on a small business of supply
of medicines/goods to chemists. The marriage card shows that
family of the petitioner is carrying on the business in the name
and style of Rishi Medicos and Syndicate Pharmaceuticals, which
would show that petitioner is involved in the same or similar
business. Petitioner has not been able to show that respondent
has any source of livelihood or she is gainfully employed. Another
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that
petitioner's parents have disowned him. I find no force in the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of
the fact that address in the petition filed by the petitioner before
the trial court is the same, which is the address of his father.
10. The courts while dealing with an application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, must take into consideration the status of
the parties as also it should be seen that the order should neither
be punitive in nature nor the maintenance awarded should be so
low as to make the order meaningless. The court must also ensure
that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such
as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and
the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband
in her matrimonial home.
11. Having regard to the facts of this case and on perusal of the
impugned order dated 19.4.2010, I find no infirmity in the same.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
November 11, 2010
'msr'
