Devender Bhardwaj vs Saroj Bhardwaj
2011 Latest Caselaw 4733 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +      CM(M) 831/2009

                               Date of Reserve : 26th August, 2011
%                           Date of decision :23rd September, 2011

      DEVENDER BHARDWAJ          ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. Pramod Ahuja and
                            Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma,
                            Advs.

                   versus

      SAROJ BHARDWAJ           ..... Respondent
                  Through : Mr. Ritesh Bahi, Mr. Randeep
                            Kumar and Mr. Jagvinder
                            Singh, Advs.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may              NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?             NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                     NO
        reported in the Digest?

                             JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned

Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court has awarded

maintenance @Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent for

herself and `7,000/- per month for her minor daughter. The

petitioner is seeking reduction of the maintenance amount.

2. The parties were married on 30th January, 2000 and they

stayed together till 12th December, 2007. The petitioner is

running a chemist shop and his income as per the last Income

Tax Return is `30,385/- per month including the rental income

of `15,000/- per month. The petitioner has received a sum of

`6,93,720/- as compensation for agricultural land. The

petitioner and his family owns 3.25 acres of agricultural land in

Old Faridabad. The petitioner has a flat in Sukhdev Vihar and a

house in Sarai Jullena. The petitioner owns a Tata Safari Car

and two credit cards. Taking all the aforesaid facts into

consideration, the learned Trial Court presumed the income of

the petitioner to be not less than `50,000/- per month.

3. Vide order dated 29th July, 2011, the parties were

directed to file the affidavit of their assets and income in Form

16A, Appendix E, under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the Code of

Civil Procedure within two weeks. The said period of two weeks

expired on 12th August, 2011. However, the petitioner has not

cared to file the said affidavit. The respondent has filed her

affidavit dated 10th August, 2011 in which she has stated that

she has no source of livelihood and is dependent upon her

father. The petitioner has not even cared to file the response

to the affidavit of the respondent.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case and

considering the non-compliance of the order dated 29th July,

2011 by the petitioner, the impugned order does not warrant

any interference.

5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsels for

both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 aj