Omveer Shehrawat vs Usha Rani
2014 Latest Caselaw 4069 Del

$-11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 DECIDED ON : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2014

+                         MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2014


       OMVEER SHEHRAWAT                                     ....Appellant
                   Through :           Mr.P.D.P.Deo        and     Ms.Dazy,
                                       Advocates.

                                 VERSUS

       USHA RANI                                           ....Respondent
                          Through :    None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.14221/2014 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

C.M. No.14222/2014 (Delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 95/2014 & C.M.No.14220/2014 (Stay)

1. The Appellant - Omveer Shehrawat is aggrieved by an order dated 02.06.2014 in HMA No.05/14 of learned Addl. Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, by which under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'HMA'), he was directed to pay maintenance of `20,000/- per month to the respondent and `10,000/- for her minor son - Kunal from the date of filing of the application besides payment of `20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and have examined the record. It is not in dispute that petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of HMA has been preferred by the Appellant which is pending disposal before the Family Court. The marriage between the parties is not denied. Admittedly, a child was born out of this wedlock on 04.12.2009 and he is in the custody of the Respondent.

3. In response to the application under Section 24 of HMA, the Appellant claimed that the Respondent was gainfully employed at Gurgaon. However, he did not disclose as to where she was doing any specific job and what was her income. The Appellant did not produce on record any document to infer if the Respondent had any independent source of income. The Respondent categorically denied to have any source of income to maintain herself and the child.

4. It is not in dispute that the Appellant is in service with Renaissance, London Heathrow Hotel in U.K. The Respondent-wife claimed that his monthly salary was more than `2.5 lacs as Manager in the said hotel. In response to that, the Appellant denied to have that income but conspicuously refrained from disclosing his exact income. Despite specific directions by the Family Court, he avoided to place on record an affidavit giving details of his income. Even in the present appeal, he has

not mentioned his specific income. He has also not placed on record any document i.e. salary slip or income tax returns etc. to reveal his exact income. Apparently, the Appellant has concealed the income being earned by him.

5. There cannot be any set formula for fixing the amount of maintenance. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must consider the status of the parties, their respective needs and the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to reasonable expenses for his maintenance. The amount of maintenance to be paid to the wife should be such that she is able to live in reasonable comfort considering the status and life style she had while living with her husband. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the payment being made to the Respondent towards educational expenses of the child by Appellant's parents. Since the Appellant has sufficient income to maintain the Respondent-wife and the child, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Judge to them cannot be considered unreasonable.

6. In the light of above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. Pending application also stands disposed of as infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 / tr