Pradeep Sharma vs Ms. Sangita Jangid
2014 Latest Caselaw 5309 Del

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
+      CM(M) 1092/2013
       PRADEEP SHARMA                                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through:              Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate

                            versus

       MS SANGITA JANGID                                   ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Pradeep Jangid, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

SUNIL GAUR, J (Oral)

Vide impugned order of 28th May, 2013, respondent's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses stands allowed. Respondent has been granted pendente lite maintenance of `6,500/- per month and litigation expenses of `8,500/-.

Learned counsel for petitioner-husband assails the impugned order on the ground that as per the affidavit of petitioner, he is working as book-binder and is earning `5,000/- to `6,000/- per month and so, the grant of pendente lite maintenance amount, which is more than his earning, is totally unjustified.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, copy of the affidavit of petitioner (Annexure -P-2), I find that the bank statement of petitioner contradicts his affidavit as there are different entries in the bank

CM(M) 1092/2013 Page 1 account of petitioner ranging from `15,000/- to `30,000/- and no plausible answer has been given by petitioner regarding the said entries. In the impugned judgment, petitioner's income has been rightly assessed as `20,000/- per month as there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was earning just `6,000/- per month and this bald plea has been taken by petitioner to defeat the legitimate claim of respondent.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
      OCTOBER 28, 2014
      s




CM(M) 1092/2013                                                     Page 2