Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Seema & Anr. on 28 January, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 245/2011 and CRL.M.A. 986-987/2011
Decided on 28.01.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
NARESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person.
versus
SEEMA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
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?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in Case No.186/2010, whereunder the petitioner, husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.2 has been directed to pay a sum of `4,500/- per month to the respondents towards their maintenance from the date of the application till further orders. He has also been directed to pay a sum of `5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The petitioner has been granted six months' period to clear the arrears of maintenance and further directed to pay monthly maintenance regularly by the 10th day of each month.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is onerous on the petitioner, as he has to maintain not only the respondents but also two children born from his first marriage, who are teenagers, apart from taking care of his aged parents. He further states that the petitioner is a government servant and his net take home salary is `12,426/- as in the month of August 2010. It is urged that the court below did not take into consideration the fact that respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and hence was not entitled to grant of any maintenance. It is lastly submitted that the parties had arrived at a settlement before the Mediation Cell at Rohini Courts, whereunder it was agreed that they would reunite and live together at the matrimonial home, but respondent No.1 joined the petitioner at the said matrimonial home only for one day and left thereafter without informing him. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition filed by the respondents is liable to be dismissed.
3. This Court has heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 20.11.2010. It may be noted at the outset that in the impugned order, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has only considered grant of interim maintenance to the respondents and the main petition is still pending. The basis for arriving at the figure of `4,500/- per month payable to respondent No.1 and her minor son, respondent No.2 towards their maintenance is the salary drawn by the petitioner, who is employed in the Delhi Jal Board as a Beldar. The Family Court took into consideration the submission of respondent No.1/wife that the petitioner was drawing a salary of `17,500/- and his net take home salary in the month of August 2010 was `12,426/-. The said figure was based on the salary slip placed by the petitioner himself on record. The conclusion in the impugned order that the salary must have increased with the recent release of the Dearness Allowance is quite reasonable. Further, the Family Court also noticed the fact that the petitioner, jointly and otherwise, owns a number of houses/residence in Nizampur. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has old parents to support was not accepted by the court below as he failed to place on record any document as evidence in support of the said submission. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position even now.
4. Having perused the impugned order, it is held that the same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity therein, which deserves interference by exercising the extraordinary powers vested in the Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith the pending applications.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is unable to immediately garner the funds to deposit the arrears of maintenance within the stipulated time, which as per his calculation amounts to `2,11,500/- as on 31.01.2011 alongwith an additional sum of `5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Under the impugned order, the petitioner was granted a period of six months to clear the arrears of maintenance. Neither has any installment been deposited by the petitioner till date towards the arrears, nor has the monthly maintenance been paid by him to the respondents in terms of the impugned order.
6. Having regard to the request of the counsel for the petitioner for extension of time, the period for depositing the arrears of maintenance is extended by two months, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay to the respondents, a first installment of `40,000/- on or before the date fixed before the trial court, i.e., on 02.02.2011. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit the first installment by the said date and does not clear the monthly maintenance payable to the respondents for the past three months, i.e., from November 2010 to January 2011 within one week, the impugned order would be maintained as it stands.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court forthwith for information.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 28, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
