Gyanender Prakash Madhur vs Smt Sushila Kumari
2015 Latest Caselaw 6330 Del

$~12

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Date of Decision: August 26, 2015

+           CRL.M.C. 2402/2014 & Crl.M.A.8139/2014
       GYANENDER PRAKASH MADHUR               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate

                     versus

       SMT SUSHILA KUMARI                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:          Dr. K. S. Bhati and Ms. Rashmi
                                      Bhati, Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,trial court has directed petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ `25,000/- per month for the two children of the parties and the said order was challenged by petitioner in appeal which also stands dismissed vide impugned order of 18th March, 2014.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statutory reduction by respondent-wife in her salary is much more and real income of the parties ought to have been considered in fixing the interim maintenance, which has not been done by the courts below and so, impugned order ought to be set aside.

Learned counsel for respondent support the impugned order and

CRL.M.C. 2402/2014 Page 1 submits that there is no illegality in fixing the maintenance amount and that petitioner can reside with respondent-wife in the matrimonial house where she is residing so that his House Rent Allowance (HRA) is not deducted.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders, the affidavit of the parties which are accompanied by copies of their salary certificate, I find that the gross salary of petitioner is `66,844/- whereas of respondent, it is `67,415/-.

During the course of hearing, it was disclosed that the two children of the parties are two teenage boys aged around 14-15 years. While taking into consideration the affidavit of the parties and their gross income, I find that the interim maintenance granted and affirmed by the courts below do not suffer from any palpable error.

Finding no substance in this petition and the application, they are dismissed.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
AUGUST 26, 2015
s




CRL.M.C. 2402/2014                                                  Page 2