Daya Ram Sharma vs Manju Sharma
2014 Latest Caselaw 6033 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Date of Decision: November 21, 2014

+   CM(M) 1035/2014
    DAYA RAM SHARMA                                   ..... Petitioner
                Through:             Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar &
                                     Mr. Bijan Kumar Singh, Advocates
                       versus

    MANJU SHARMA                                       ..... Respondent
                Through:             Nemo.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                   JUDGMENT

% (ORAL) CM No. 19155/2014 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 1035/2014 & CM No. 19154/2014 (stay)

In a divorce petition filed by petitioner, respondent's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed by trial court vide impugned order whereby interim maintenance of `12,000/- per month has been granted to the son and daughter of the parties who are aged 18 years and 14 years respectively. Litigation cost of `30,000/- have also been awarded to respondent.

At the hearing, it was urged on behalf of petitioner-husband that the interim maintenance amount granted to the children of the

CM(M) No. 1035/2014 Page 1 parties is infact the annual expense and not the monthly expense and the interim maintenance has been granted without any basis. Reliance was placed upon Apex Court's decision in Padmja Sharma vs. Ratan Lal Sharma AIR 2000 SC 1398 to assail the impugned order. Lastly, it was submitted that the litigation expenses of `30,000/- awarded to respondent who is earning more than petitioner, is unwarranted.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the order of 17th September, 2014 and the material on record as well as the decision cited, I find that on the basis of the affidavits of the parties, the interim maintenance amount has been determined by the trial court. On the basis of salary slips of appellant herein, the gross salary of appellant has been taken to be `41,192/- and it is noted in the impugned order that the expenses incurred on behalf of children are in fact monthly expenses and not annual expenses. The bank account statement of the parties have been also considered by the trial court vide impugned order and I find that the dictum of the Apex Court in Padmja Sharma (supra) has been kept in mind by the trial court while granting the interim maintenance to respondent.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition as well as the application are dismissed.

                                                     (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                       JUDGE
NOVEMBER 21, 2014
mb

CM(M) No. 1035/2014                                            Page 2