Rakesh Kumar Sanwaria vs Guddi
2015 Latest Caselaw 114 Del

*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 C.M. (M) No.670/2013 & C.M. No.10076/2014

                                    Decided on : 8th January, 2015

RAKESH KUMAR SANWARIA                 ...... Petitioner
            Through: Mr. D.K. Kaushik & Ms. Swati Rathi,
                     Advocates.

                         Versus

GUDDI                                               ...... Respondent
                       Through:   Mr. Suresh Sisodia, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 4.5.2013 by virtue of which

the learned Additional District Judge (West) has fixed an ad interim

maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.2,500/- per month for each

of the applicant. It has also been clarified that this would be inclusive of

and adjustable against an amount of Rs.2,500/- already awarded to them

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, one time litigation expenses

of Rs.11,000/- has been directed to be given to the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also

gone through the record. The petitioner has not been able to make out

any case for interference by this court as he has failed to show that there

is any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the order.

3. In order to appreciate the submissions, it would be relevant to

given brief facts of the case. It is not disputed that the petitioner got

married to the respondent in the year 1990. From the wedlock, the

petitioner has three children, one daughter and two sons, who are school

going children. The parties are living separately for the last number of

years.

4. The present petitioner filed a petition for divorce allegedly on the

ground of cruelty and desertion as stated by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. The respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking ad interim maintenance. In the

application, it was alleged that the petitioner is working as a scrap dealer

(kabaadi) and is earning around Rs.50,000/- per month and since the

respondent has no other source of income, the petitioner be directed to

pay ad interim maintenance apart from litigation expenses to her. The

petitioner filed reply contesting the claim that he was earning

Rs. 50,000/- per month. It was alleged by him that he is earning a meager

amount of Rs.5000-6000/- per month and further he alleged that the

respondent herself is taking private odd jobs from the residence and is

earning around Rs.18,000-20,000/- per month. It has also been stated that

the respondent has already been able to obtain an order of Rs.2,500/- per

month for each of the applicant by way of an ad interim maintenance

from a criminal court as a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by

her.

5. The learned trial court, after permitting the parties to file their

respective affidavits along with the documents, heard the learned counsel

and assumed as a guess work, the earnings of the petitioner to be

Rs.20,000/- per month and not Rs.50,000/- per month as alleged by the

respondent. The basis for assuming the earnings of the petitioner to be

Rs.20,000/- per month was on account of the fact that he had taken loan

from a private bank (HDFC Bank) where a certain minimum balance of

not less than Rs.10,000/- has to be maintained at any given time. Further

he had got himself insured and was paying annual premium of

Rs.16,000/-. The trial court had also examined the entries in the

passbook filed by the petitioner and arrived at this conservative estimate

of the petitioner earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Out of this Rs.20,000/-,

the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent

and her children for the purpose of maintenance. The children are minor

school going children. A sum of Rs.2,500/- is hardly sufficient to

maintain an individual in the present day times. The amount of money

which has been fixed by way of an ad interim maintenance, in my

considered opinion, is not only reasonable, just and fair but is bare

minimum which has been fixed by the trial court by a reasoned order

which does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. The petitioner has not been able to point out any material

irregularity in arriving at a conclusion as has been done by the trial court

or any jurisdictional error in passing an order. Since the aforesaid order

dated 4.5.2013 is an ad interim order and is to operate till the time the

divorce petition between the parties is adjudicated, therefore, it does not

call for any interference.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is totally misconceived and the

same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JANUARY 08, 2015 'AA'