Manoj Raturi vs The State & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 728 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of Decision: January 27, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 309/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.1197-98/2015
      MANOJ RATURI                                     ..... Petitioner
                        Through:      Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Advocate

                        versus

      THE STATE & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                    Through:          Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional
                                      Public Prosecutor for respondent
                                      No.1-State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide order of 30th October, 2014, petitioner has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondent- wife and her child.

At the hearing, challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the income of petitioner was earlier at `6,000/- per month and at present, petitioner is unemployed and respondent No.2-wife is earning and so, grant of interim maintenance to respondents No. 2 & 3 is unjustified.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order as well as trial

Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 1 court's order of 26th November, 2013, I find that the case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner-husband is working as Administrative Manager and is earning `25,000/- per month whereas case of petitioner is that he is earning `6,000/- per month only and therefore, grant of interim maintenance to respondents 2 & 3 is unjustified, as petitioner is unemployed now.

Petitioner is stated to be a graduate who is an able bodied person and his income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, which in the instant case would come to more than `8,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 is well justified.

Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE

JANUARY 27, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No.309/2015                                                 Page 2