Delhi High Court
Hema vs Vinod Kumar on 8 April, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (M) No.367/2013
Decided on : 08th April, 2013
HEMA ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Avinash Bhasin, Advocate.
Versus
VINOD KUMAR ...... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated
30.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge by virtue of
which the learned trial court has granted maintenance of `4,000/- per
month to the petitioner for her own self and for her minor child. By the
present petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the aforesaid
order and enhancement of the ad interim maintenance to a sum of
`50,000/- per month for herself and her minor child apart from litigation
expenses of `31,000/-.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned order. The respondent/husband had filed a petition being
HMA No.57/2011 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for grant of divorce on the basis of cruelty before the learned trial
court. The petitioner/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance @ `50,000/- per month
for her own self and for her minor child and litigation expenses of
`31,000/-. It may be pertinent here to mention that the parties had got
married on 13.11.2008 and out of the wedlock, one issue was born on
12.4.2010.
3. In the application filed by the petitioner/wife seeking maintenance,
she had stated that the respondent/husband is a man of means and he is
running the business of manufacturing and sale of chappals at three
places, that is, at (1) A-722, Ground Floor, Madipur Colony, Delhi; (2)
WZ-512, Madipur, Delhi and (3) an another factory at tenanted premises
in Delhi. It was alleged that he had employed about 20-25 workers and
was conveniently making not less than `1 lac per month. It was also
alleged that the respondent had various bank accounts, ATM cards and
was earning around `40,000/- per month from the aforesaid bank
accounts, deposits and FDR's. In addition to this, it was also stated that
he had let out third floor of the property bearing No.A-722, Madipur
Colony, Delhi and was earning a rent of `3,000/- per month. On the basis
of this, ad interim maintenance of `50,000/- per month and litigation
expenses of `31,000/- is claimed by the petitioner.
4. The respondent/husband had filed reply and contested all these
facts. He had stated that he is only earning `6,000/- per month and he has
to maintain his parents also. It was alleged by the respondent/husband
that so far as the petitioner is concerned, she is earning `5,000/- per
month and apart from this, she is also working as a beautician and mehndi
applicator on freelance basis and accordingly, earning conveniently a sum
of `7,000-10,000/- on each occasion. It was stated that she is earning
sufficient amount of money to sustain herself and her minor child.
5. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments and by taking
the affidavit of the respondent/husband to be more credible wherein he
had stated that he is earning `6,000/- per month, passed an order dated
30.1.2013 directing the payment of `3,000/- per month by way of
maintenance to the petitioner/wife and a sum of `1,000/- per month to the
minor child, though it was stated by the learned trial judge that the
respondent/husband should work more in order to pay the maintenance to
the petitioner and the minor child. The reason for not accepting the
version with regard to assets and the earnings of the respondent/husband
as given by the petitioner/wife was that the petitioner had not chosen to
file a detailed affidavit in terms of the judgment of this court passed in
Puneet Kaur vs. Inderjeet Singh Sahwney; (2012) ILR I Delhi 73.
6. I have gone through the impugned order. I find myself to be in full
agreement with the analysis made by the learned trial judge of prima
facie evidence adduced by the parties, I have no reason to disagree that
the petitioner is making a tall and exaggerated claim with regard to the
assets of the respondent/husband only in order to extract higher amount
of maintenance. She has not placed any documentary evidence on record
either before the trial court or before this court which would show that the
respondent/husband has been the owner of the abovementioned shops or
his earnings as alleged.
7. As against this, the respondent/husband has filed a detailed
affidavit showing his income and the assets in terms of judgment passed
in Puneet Kaur's case (supra). The trial court has taken the income of
the husband to be `6,000/- and awarded the maintenance to the petitioner,
accordingly, I feel that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness
in the finding returned by the trial court and accordingly, the petition is
without any merit and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 08, 2013
'AA'
