Delhi High Court
Avnita Ahluwalia & Anr vs Vikaas Ahluwalia on 15 March, 2013
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:15.03.2013
+ FAO (OS) No.147/2013
AVNITA AHLUWALIA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Mr. Kshitij Kumar
& Mr. Deepak Chanderpal, Advs.
versus
VIKAAS AHLUWALIA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
CM No.4492/2013 (Exemption)
1 Allowed subjection to just exceptions.
FAO (OS) No.147/2013
2 The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 05.03.2013 wherein on the interim application filed by the
appellants (original plaintiffs) being the wife and the minor daughter of
the respondent, had been granted maintenance @ Rs.75,000/- per month
w.e.f. 01.01.2013 as also certain other benefits. These benefits included
an air-conditioned car and a driver along with its running and
maintenance expenses subject to a maximum of 250 litres of
petrol/diesel per month; the school fee including school books and
school dress of their minor daughter as also excursion or other activity
expenses that she may undertake; the medical expenses of both the
appellants were also to be reimbursed by the respondent.
3 The appellants are aggrieved by this interim arrangement. Their
submission is that the day to day expenses of the appellants are much
more and keeping in view the status of the respondent who is a whole
time Director in a reputed contractual company, the aforenoted rate of
maintenance is liable to be enhanced.
4 Record shows that the learned Single Judge has delved into detail
into the family background of the parties. It has been noted that
appellant No. 2 and the respondent, after their marriage, were living
separately from the parents of the respondent at Jalvayu Vihar, Noida as
the marriage of the parties was against their wishes. It was only when
appellant No. 2 conceived that the parties started living with the family
of the respondent. It has been noted that as far back as on 20.12.2010,
the respondent had offered to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the
appellants as an interim measure but the same had not been accepted. It
has also been noted that vide order dated 25.04.2011, the respondent had
deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly expenses in the
Guardianship Court totaling a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- but that amount was
also not withdrawn by the appellants. The appellants are presently living
in Gujrat Vihar, Delhi which is the parental house of appellant No. 2.
The child of the parties is studying at Delhi Public School, Noida.
5 Documentary evidence had been filed by the respective parties
which included the income tax returns of the respondent to establish his
income which averments had been disputed by the learned counsel for
the appellant. It may be noted that the impugned order has only made an
interim arrangement pending trial; this is only on a prima-facie view of
the matter. The parties are yet to go to trial and it is for the appellants to
establish their case and for the respondent to refute it which can only be
done during the course of trial.
6 The fact that the married couple was living at Jalvayu Vihar,
Noida immediately after their marriage and presently also the appellants
are living in a 150 square yards house owned by the parents of appellant
No. 2 is also a reflection of the status of the parties. All relevant factors
were considered and taken into account by the learned Single Judge.
This exercise of his discretionary power was fair.
7 Impugned order in this background calls for no interference.
Appeal is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
MARCH 15, 2013
A
