Delhi High Court
Master Arham(Minor) & Anr vs Abhinav Jain on 10 April, 2015
$~A-48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.04.2015
+ CS(OS) 1093/2014
MASTER ARHAM(MINOR) & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sunil Mund, Mrs. Bedashree
Borah and Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advs.
versus
ABHINAV JAIN ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
IA No.7085/2014
1. By this application, the plaintiffs seek grant of ad interim
maintenance and living expenses.
2. The present suit is filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is averred that plaintiff No.2 was
married to the defendant on 25.11.2007 and they were blessed with a
son, plaintiff No.1 who was born on 29.03.2009. Plaintiff No.1 is
staying now with plaintiff No.2. For various reasons ultimately the
plaintiffs had to move out from the matrimonial home on 11.05.2010.
3. A settlement was arrived at before the Mediation. In terms of the
settlement, the plaintiff No.2 had agreed to go back to the defendant
CS(OS) 1093/2014 Page 1 of 5
after conclusion of the examination. It was further agreed that the
defendant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- per month in the account of plaintiff
No.2 for monthly household expenses from May 2010 onwards . Other
terms and conditions were also agreed upon.
4. Pursuant to the settlement the plaintiffs joined the matrimonial
home on 18.08.2010. Suddenly on 18.01.2012 it is stated that the
defendant for no reasonable cause drove the plaintiffs out of the
matrimonial home against the will of the plaintiffs. It is stated that
thereafter the defendant has not cared about the well being of the
plaintiffs. It is admitted that the defendant is depositing Rs.6000/- per
month with the plaintiff but it is said that this is not an adequate amount
for the plaintiffs to live life in a metropolitan city like Delhi.
5. Hence the present suit is filed seeking maintenance @ Rs.30,000/-
per month w.e.f. 02.11.2008.
6. As per the plaint the defendant is working with a reputed
multinational named John Deere Technology Centre at Pune as an
Engineer in I.T. Support and is drawing the salary of Rs.70,000/- per
month apart from other perks. There are allegations that the defendant
and his family own immoveable properties in Pune, Udaipur and
Ghaziabad.
7. Pursuant to the orders of this court dated 04.02.2015 the
defendant has placed on record his income tax return and form 16 for
the last three years. Relevant form 16 shows that the defendant has
received a salary of Rs.760409/- for the period from 01.04.2013 to
31.03.2014.
CS(OS) 1093/2014 Page 2 of 5
8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has opposed the
present application. He has submitted that plaintiff No.2 is more qualified
than the defendant and is earning more than the defendant. It is further
stated that since plaintiff No.2 has deserted the defendant, she is not
entitled to seek any maintenance from the defendant. As far as
maintenance of plaintiff No.1/child is concerned, the defendant states
that he deposits Rs.6000/- per month for the expenses of the child with
plaintiff No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the defendant further states that out of
Rs.7,60,000/- per annum deduction of the income tax and EMI for
housing a balance of Rs.25,000/- per month is left with him from which
he has to take care of himself and his parents.
10. Learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon certain
computer print outs to demonstrate that plaintiff No.2 is earning more
than the defendant. First print out shows that plaintiff No.2 has placed
her profile whereby she is stated to be an M.A. in English and having a
B.Ed. Degree. She has stated that she is willing to take tuitions of various
students in English @ Rs.1000/- to Rs.1800/- per hour.
11. Another print out is relied upon which shows that certain classes
are being conducted by plaintiff No.2. The relevant portion of the print
out states that she has so many enquiries for classes and admission and
that she has decided to start a new batch. Relying on these print outs it is
averred that plaintiff No.2 is earning more than the defendant.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has denied the
averments of the defendant. He states that plaintiff No.2 is unemployed
CS(OS) 1093/2014 Page 3 of 5
and is ready to make a statement before this Court in this regard. He
states that plaintiff No.2 has no source of income. He states that
averments in the plaint are supported by the affidavit of plaintiff No.2
herself.
13. As far as the earning capacity of the plaintiff is concerned, in my
opinion the reliance of the defendant on the computer print outs is
misplaced. The print outs appear to be more of an attempt on the part of
the plaintiff No.2 to look for students for coaching. The statement that
she has decided to a start fresh batch of classes appears to be an attempt
to advertise for classes and an attempt to persuade students to join the
classes. It is possible that plaintiff No.2 may have got some students
from whom she might have been charging some coaching fees but no
definite conclusion can be arrived at on this aspect based on these
computer print out.
14. There is no dispute that as per the print outs of Form 16 placed on
record by the defendant, the salary of the defendant is Rs.7,60,000/- per
annum less Rs.27,000/- deducted as tax.
15. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Neetmal Jain (2010) 12 SCC
242. In the said judgment the Supreme Court held as follows:
"10. In other words, in the matter of making an order for
interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be
guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the
means of the parties and also after taking into account
incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the
background from which both the parties come from and the
economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for
CS(OS) 1093/2014 Page 4 of 5
interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a
detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be
necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all
the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper
amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in
the statute."
Hence while passing an order of interim maintenance, the order of
its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the
Court is not necessary.
16. Keeping in view that plaintiff No.2 is unemployed and also has to
take care of a minor child/plaintiff No.1, who is 6 years of age, I fix the
interim maintenance for the plaintiffs @ Rs.17,500/- per month . This
amount will be paid from the date of the filing of the suit . The arrears of
the maintenance shall be paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant within
four months from today. He will pay the monthly maintenance amount by
7th of each month.
17. With these observations, the application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) No.802/2014
List before the Joint Registrar on 20.05.2015, the date already
fixed.
JAYANT NATH, J.
APRIL 10 2015
rb/n
