Pradeep Gautam vs Monika Gautam
2014 Latest Caselaw 6042 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: November 21, 2014

+     CM(M) 1033/2014
      PRADEEP GAUTAM                                    ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare,
                                       Advocate

                         versus

      MONIKA GAUTAM                                       ..... Respondent
                  Through:             Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

%                          (ORAL)

C.M. No.19124/2014

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 1033/2014 & C.M. No.19123/2014 (for stay) The respondent's application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed by trial court vide impugned order of 15 th January, 2014. Petitioner-husband has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `5500/- per month to respondent-wife with litigation expenses of `6000/-.

At the hearing it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner- husband that in view of the judgment in Punit Kaur vs. Inderjeet Singh Sawney 183 (2011) DLT 403 trial court ought to have called upon the

CM(M) No. 1033/2014 Page 1 parties to give their affidavits regarding their financial status and the interim maintenance assessed is infact on the higher side.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that though there is reference to the affidavit of the parties in the impugned order but the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is accompanied by affidavit and reply thereto by respondent has been taken into consideration. Infact, it is noted in the impugned order that respondent has filed her income affidavit to show her financial status but petitioner herein has not done so. In such a situation, the ratio of decision in Punit Kaur (supra) would be of no assistance to petitioner. Impugned order has been passed while taking into consideration the salary slips of petitioner. The interim maintenance awarded does not appear to be on the higher side.

There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE

NOVEMBER 21, 2014
mb




CM(M) No. 1033/2014                                                 Page 2