Ashok Murgai vs Master Aditya Murgai Through Mrs. ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 477 Del

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       RFA No.490/2000

%                                                  27th January, 2011

ASHOK MURGAI                                  ...... Appellant
                              Through:    Nemo.


                        VERSUS


MASTER ADITYA MURGAI THROUGH                  ...... Respondent
MRS. ACHALA MURGAI      Through:          Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

 1.   Whether the 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?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)


1.          This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3rd

January, 2011. Today this matter is effective No.1 on the Regular Board.

No one appears for the appellant although it is 2.45 P.M. I have, therefore,

perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

2.          The challenge by means of the present first appeal is to the

impugned judgment and decree dated 10th July, 2000, whereby the claim

of the respondent No.2 towards her maintenance and the maintenance of

the minor child, who is the respondent No.1 herein, was disposed of by


RFA No.490/2000                                                   Page 1 of 3
 disallowing the claim of maintenance of the wife, Mrs. Achala Murgai, but

the claim of maintenance of the minor child was allowed by granting a sum

of Rs.4,000/- per month.

3.          The Trial Court has recorded that both the parents i.e., the

plaintiff No.1/mother and the present appellant/husband had concealed

facts as to their income and properties. As a result of this, the Trial Court

refused to grant maintenance to the wife. However, the Trial Court noted

that the responsibility to maintain the respondent No.1 herein was of both

the parents and, therefore, considering the income of both the parents,

who had immovable properties in posh localities of South Delhi and also

other movable properties including amounts being received towards rent

and so on, granted by balancing all the factors, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per

month for maintenance of the respondent no.1.

4.          In the opinion of this Court, considering the financial status of

the parties, as disclosed in the impugned judgment, grant of Rs.4,000/- per

month against the appellant and in favour of the respondent No.1 herein,

cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or perverse. This Court is not

entitled to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court only because two

views are possible. This Court does not interfere with one view which is

taken by the Trial Court unless the same is illegal or perverse or causes

grave injustice.   I do not find that any such ingredient exists in the

impugned judgment in the facts of the present case.

5.          In view of the above, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed,

RFA No.490/2000                                                    Page 2 of 3
 leaving the parties to bear their own costs.     CM Nos.1143/2001 and

1491/2001 stand disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back.




JANUARY 27, 2011                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

vk