Delhi High Court
Shweta Sinha vs Ravi Sinha on 15 February, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 478/2010
% Date of Decision: 15.02.2012
SHWETA SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr C.B. Singh, Advocate
versus
RAVI SINHA ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
1. By way of this petition, petitioner-wife has challenged the order dated
31st October, 2009 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi has
allowed her application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and respondent-
husband has been directed to pay the petitioner-wife Rs.2000/- per month as
maintenance pendente lite along with Rs.5000/- towards the litigation
expenses. The respondent-husband is further directed to pay Rs.500/-
towards the travelling expenses to the petitioner-wife as and when she comes
to Delhi from Muzaffarpur to attend the proceedings.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of present petition are as under:-
Respondent-husband has filed a petition u/s 13(i)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act against the petitioner-wife seeking divorce on the ground of
adultery which is pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Delhi. In the
said petition, petitioner-wife has filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for interim maintenance for herself. It is alleged that
respondent-husband is a well qualified person earning around Rs.40,000/-
per month. Besides, his father gets pension of Rs.10000/- per month and
respondent-husband also owns agricultural land. Respondent-husband has
no other liability except to maintain petitioner-wife. By way of her
application she had prayed for the grant of Rs. 15,000/- towards maintenance
pendente lite. She has also prayed for litigation expenses and travelling
expenses. Respondent-husband has opposed the said application by filing
reply wherein it is alleged that petitioner-wife is giving tuitions and earning
about Rs.7000-8000 per month. Respondent/husband has denied the
allegations of his earnings. About his income, respondent-husband has
contended that he is also earning about Rs.7000-8000 from tuitions. He has
alleged that he has no claim over the pension of his father. Respondent-
husband has levelled allegations of adultery against the petitioner-wife.
3. Learned ADJ has disposed of the application vide impugned order
mentioned above granting maintenance pendente lite/litigation
expenses/travelling expenses which are also mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that very meagre amount
of maintenance is awarded to petitioner. It is contended that considering the
income of respondent, petitioner is entitled for higher amount of
maintenance pendente lite.
5. Before the learned ADJ, Delhi no material was placed by both the
parties to substantiate allegations about alleged income of each other. The
relevant finding of the trial court on the quantum of maintenance is as
under:-
"Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the
applicant/wife claims that non-applicant/husband has an
income of Rs.40,000/- per month besides, sum of
Rs.10,000/- which he gets on account of pension of his
father. On the other hand, non applicant/husband claims
that he is earning only Rs.7000/- to rs.8000/- per month
and that he does not have anything to do with the pension
of his father and the applicant/wife is herself earning
Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month from tuitions. None of
the parties have filed any documents in support of their
respective contentions. It is moral and legal responsibility
of the non-applicant/husband to maintain the
applicant/wife at least specialty when no maintenance has
been sought for the minor child at this stage."
6. The allegations made by petitioner-wife about income of respondent
are vague. Even necessary details of alleged employment are also not given.
She has alleged that husband is well qualified. Even the necessary details of
educational qualification of husband are also not given. Even the necessary
details of alleged properties/agricultural land of respondent/husband is also
not given. Nothing has been placed on record before Ld. ADJ or before this
court that husband owns agricultural land or palatial house as is alleged. The
allegation even lacks material particular also.
7. In these circumstances, no illegality is seen in the order of the
learned Addl. District Judge which calls for interference by this court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is clarified that by impugned order maintenance pendente lite is
awarded to petitioner/wife. The same does not cover the interim
maintenance for the child. Petitioner-wife will be at liberty to move
appropriate application in accordance with law before the trial court for the
grant of interim maintenance for the child.
Petition stands disposed of.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
ssb
