Delhi High Court
Manmohan vs Sapna on 1 September, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
47.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 01.09.2010
+ CM(M) 1127/2010
MAN MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.S. Gautam and Mr. H.S.
Gautam, Advs.
versus
SAPNA ..... Respondent
Through : NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
+ CM NO.15840/2010 (EXEMPTION)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exception.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM NO.15839/2010.
3. Dismissed.
+ CM(M)NO.1127/2010.
4. Present petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2010, which
has been passed on an application filed by the respondent wife
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an
unemployed person and has no source of income. Counsel further
submits that respondent is running a tuition centre as also a beauty
parlor and, thus, she does not require any maintenance.
6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. In this case, marriage
between the parties was solemnized on 27.2.2009, no child was
born out of their wedlock. Parties have been residing separately
since 26.6.2009. I have carefully examined the order passed by the
trial court. Learned trial court has observed that in the reply filed by
the petitioner to the respondent's application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act filed in the petition bearing no.396/09, the
husband (petitioner herein) has stated that he is doing work of
making pearl necklaces at a jewellery shop and is earning ` 2500/-
per month. The trial court has further observed that in the reply filed
in HMA No.55/2010, the petitioner has stated that he was working
as a peon at the time of marriage in a shop.
7. The trial court has taken into consideration the contentions of both
the parties. The trial court has dealt with all the contentions raised
by the petitioner and granted maintenance to the wife of `2595/-
per month.
8. It will be useful to refer to the case of Abhishek Khanna v. Ritika
Seth, reported at 146 (2008) DLT 316 wherein this Court has
observed that tendency is not to disclose the income truthfully when
a dispute between the husband and the wife occurs and, thus, the
Court is forced to take a general view. Petitioner has not produced a
single document in support of his plea that the wife is working.
Petitioner has also not placed his salary slip to show his last drawn
salary. The trial court has also noticed that in the proceedings filed
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act `2595/-, per month, has
been fixed as maintenance, but the petitioner withdrew the said
petition. Stand of the petitioner in the said petition and the reply in
the present petition is also contradictory.
9. In view of above, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the trial
court taking into consideration the price index and also the fact that
maintenance, so granted, should not be so low that the order
becomes meaningless. Accordingly, present petition stands
dismissed.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
September 01, 2010
'msr'
