Nidhi Srivastava vs Manish Kumar Srivastava
2012 Latest Caselaw 2810 Del

8
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +       CM(M)No.1015/2008

%                                 Date of decision: 27th April, 2012

      NIDHI SRIVASTAVA                .... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.

                    versus


      MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA       ..... Respondent
                   Through : Mr. Anirudh Mudgal,
                             Ms. Nishtha Wadhwa and
                             Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advs.

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

                         JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th July,

2008 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the learned

Trial Court has awarded `3,500/- per month as maintenance for

the minor child Baby Mahika. The Trial Court has also awarded

`5,500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner.

2. Both the parties have filed their affidavits of assets and

income in terms of order dated 12th July, 2011.

3. Both the parties are employed. The petitioner is working

as teacher with Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalya-II Shakarpur,

Delhi-110092 and is earning `13,160/- per month whereas the

respondent is working as Engineer in National Thermal Power

Corporation Limited and his net salary is `41,848/- per month.

The petitioner is the owner of two shops in Patparganj out of

which one shop is on rent at `7,552/- per month. The

petitioner is also in occupation of the respondent's flat at 84,

Prashant Apartments, 41, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092 whereas

the respondent is staying in a rented accommodation at a

monthly rent of `4,200/- per month. The respondent is also

paying the school fees as well as all expenses relating to the

minor child Mahika. He is also incurring expenditure towards a

Life Insurance Policy taken out for minor child, Mahika.

4. Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, this

Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the

learned Trial Court.

5. The petition is therefore dismissed.

J.R.MIDHA, J

APRIL 27, 2012 mm