Delhi High Court
Raja Babu Singh vs Vandana Tomar Singh on 13 February, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. NO.116 OF 2011 & C.M. NOS.15906 OF 2011,
15907 OF 2011
Decided on : 13th February, 2013
RAJA BABU SINGH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarannum Ansari, Advocate.
Versus
VANDANA TOMAR SINGH ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 115 CPC against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by Ms. Reena
Singh Nag, the learned Additional District Judge-2, North East,
Karkardooma Courts directing the petitioner to pay a sum of `6,000/- per
month by way of ad interim maintenance to the respondent and her minor
child. In addition to this, the petitioner has also been directed to pay a
sum of `10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main
contention of the learned counsel is that a sum of `6,000/- which has been
fixed by the learned trial court is highly excessive keeping in view the
fact that the petitioner is not earning anything and only a notional income
of `15,000/- has been considered as his income. It has been stated that
the petitioner also has a widowed mother to be maintained apart from
supporting his own self and, therefore, in such a contingency, directing
the petitioner to pay a sum of `6,000/- per month to the respondent is
highly excessive.
3. I have carefully considered the submissions and have gone through
the record. The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce on the ground
of cruelty and desertion. During the pendency of the said petition, the
respondent filed an application seeking a sum of `10,000/- for herself and
a sum of `5,000/- for her minor child by way of ad interim maintenance
apart from the litigation expenses of `11,000/-. The respondent took the
plea that the petitioner is earning `40,000/- per month whereas the
respondent does not have any independent source of income nor does she
own any movable or immovable property in her name. The petitioner
filed reply to the said application and stated that at the time of filing of
the application, he was unemployed and had no independent source of
income prior to this. He had admitted that he was employed as Junior
Research Fellow in the Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology in
Gurgaon and was getting a salary of `12,000/- per month apart from 30
per cent of HRA. He had further alleged that so far as the respondent is
concerned, she had done B.Ed. and was allegedly working as a teacher in
a play school run by her father. In this regard, no documentary evidence
was placed by the petitioner before the trial court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the parties are having a minor child of three
years and the fact that the respondent/wife was not having any
independent source of income, the trial court assumed that even though
the petitioner may be unemployed but he had the capacity to earn
`15,000/- per month as he had admitted to have earned the same before
filing of the application. Therefore, a sum of `15,000/- per month was
taken to be as the notional income of the petitioner and the court fixed a
sum of `6,000/- per month as ad interim maintenance keeping in view the
fact that the petitioner had to maintain his widowed mother also apart
from his own self. The reasoning given in this regard by the trial court is
as under :-
"........It is not disputed that non-applicant is M.Sc. He has
placed on record a letter from Institute of Pesticide
Formulation Technology dated 28.05.08 wherein he has
been offered the placement of Jr. Research Fellow. Then
there is another letter dated 31.03.10 which mentions that
non-applicant had worked on the project titled
„Development of Environment and User Friendly Natural
Product Based Formulation for Household Purposes‟
awarded by Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals,
Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers from 09.06.08 to
31.03.2010. The application for visitation right is
subsequent to the service period referred in the aforesaid
letter dated 31.03.2010 so the contention of the counsel for
applicant does assumes significance and is believable that
non-applicant is presently gainfully employed. Moreover,
he is an educated person and is capable of earning decently.
His earlier income from the project work was `12,000/- +
30% HRA (`15,600/- p.m.). Applicant has claimed the
income of non-applicant as `40,000/- but no documentary
proof has been adduced in this regard. The bank statement
of the non-applicant placed by him of State Bank of India,
Gurgaon Branch, reflects the period of statement from
31.03.09 to 14.05.2010 and periodical amount credited in
his SB account is `15,600/-. The contention of the counsel
for non-applicant is that applicant being educated having
done B.Ed. she is capable of earning herself to maintain her
daily needs. She has placed reliance on the order of
Hon‟ble Justice Sh. Shiv Narayan Dhingra dated 01.10.08
in CM (N) 1153/08 titled „Kavita Prasad Vs. Ram Ashray
Prasad. In that case, petitioner was an MBBS qualified
doctor and keeping in view her qualification....."
5. I have gone through the above reasoning. I do not find any
illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order. It is the
common knowledge that the husbands, after filing the petition for grant of
divorce, when they are put to terms and directed to pay maintenance to
their wife in pursuance to their statutory obligation under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, they claim that they are unemployed. In the
instant case also, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that at the time
when he filed the petition for grant of divorce on the basis of cruelty and
desertion, he was earning `12,000/- per month plus 30 per cent HRA. In
addition to this, he must have been getting some other benefits like
dearness allowance, travelling allowance, etc., which fact has not been
disclosed. All these facts clearly show that he is capable of earning at
least approximately `15,000/- to `20,000/- per month. In such a
contingency, it cannot be said to be totally unreasonable or inappropriate
for the court to assume the notional income of the petitioner to the extent
of `15,000/- per month and divide the same in the proportion of 2:5 and
pay the maintenance to the respondent/wife, as has been done in the
instant case.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that there is no merit in the
revision petition of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
'AA'
