Mohammad Aslam vs Gulista
2015 Latest Caselaw 805 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : JANUARY 29, 2015

+      CRL.REV.P. 691/2014 & Crl.M.A.17699/2014 (Stay)

       MOHAMMAD ASLAM
                                                      ..... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr.Javed Ali, Advocate.


                         versus

       GULISTA
                                                          ..... Respondent
                         Through : None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner to impugn the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Courts, North-East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi whereby

interim maintenance @`3,000 per month from the date of filing of the

application i.e.29.10.2011 till date of order i.e.12.09.2014 and @ `3,500/-

from the date of Order till disposal of the petition was awarded to the

respondent-wife.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner

has a monthly income of `5,000/- and is unable to pay the unreasonable

amount granted to the respondent as interim maintenance. The petitioner

is a labourer by profession.

3. I have examined the file. The petitioner has claimed himself

to be a carpenter by profession. It is not expected that being a skilled

worker, he would earn only `5,000/- in a month. Apparently, he has not

revealed his true income. Reliance has been placed on settlement arrived

at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts on

17.01.2013. Even as per this settlement, the petitioner was to pay

monthly amount of `5,000/- to the complainant besides rent for the rented

accommodation to be arranged by him. He was also to get his share in the

movable and immovable property of his father and to execute the

documents in favour of the respondent. It belies petitioner's assertion that

his monthly income is only `5,000/-.

4. The impugned order based upon fair appraisal needs no

interference. Quantum of interim maintenance cannot be considered

excessive or unreasonable. The petition is dismissed in limine. All

pending application(s) stand disposed of.

5. Trial court record (if any) be sent back along with a copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2015/sa