Delhi High Court
Inder Paul vs Urvashi Garg on 23 March, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (M) No.307/2009 & 732/2009
Decided on : 23rd March, 2015
+ C.M. (M) No.307/2009
URVASHI AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal & Mr. Pradeep Verma,
Advocates.
versus
INDER PAUL ..... Respondent
Through: In person.
WITH
+ C.M. (M) No.732/2009
INDER PAUL ..... Petitioner
Through: In person.
versus
URVASHI GARG ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal & Mr. Pradeep Verma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. Brief facts of the present case are that a marriage was solemnized
between the parties on 11.11.1997 according to Hindu rites,
customs and ceremonies at Delhi. Out of the said wedlock three
children were born where one female child born on 11.10.1998
expired immediately while one male child born on 14.08.2000 and
one female child born on 14.08.2002 are in care and custody of the
wife.
2. Soon thereafter problems ensued between the parties and the
husband filed a divorce petition U/s. 13 (i)(a) HMA vide. HMA
No. 219/08/06. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the
wife filed for maintenance under S. 24 and 26 of the HMA on
29.03.2006 seeking grant of maintenance interim pendent lite to the
tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month and litigation expenses of
Rs.22,000 for the maintenance of herself and her two minor
children. The wife in her application further stated that the monthly
expenses of both the children are more than Rs 5,000/- each.
3. The wife had alleged that the husband is employed in Airport
Authority of India and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Apart from
this, he is doing business under the name and style of M/s Galaxy
Financial Services. It was also alleged that he has movable
properties and interest in family business from where he is earning
approximately Rs.50,000/-. She claimed that she is herself earning
Rs.8,200/- per month. She claimed maintenance at the rate of
Rs.35,000 per month as she is earning Rs.8,400/-.
4. The husband has refuted this and claimed that he is earning only
Rs.9,591/- or so. The other allegations regarding business interest,
it was stated that wife has sufficient income to maintain herself.
5. The application for maintenance was disposed of vide order dated
21.09.2006, granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month for self
and two children and Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses to the wife.
6. The husband aggrieved by the said order preferred an application
for review U/s 114 CPC read with S. 151 CPC. The Ld. ADJ vide
order dated 20.09.2008 reviewed the order of maintenance passed
earlier and directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500/-
per month to each of the two children that is Rs 7000/- in entirety.
So far as the maintenance to the wife was concerned, it was
observed that as she was earning, therefore, she was not entitled to
any maintenance.
7. Soon thereafter the husband filed another application U/s 25(2) of
the HMA read with S.151 of CPC seeking reduction of
maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and also
praying for the cancellation of the litigation charges awarded under
the terms of the order dated 20.09.2008. The said application was
filed on the grounds that the wife is a government employee and
her salary was enhanced by the VI the pay Commission with effect
from 1.1.2006.
8. On 27.11.2008, the wife filed another application under S.24 of
HMA for enhancement of maintenance. The Ld. Court of ADJ vide
order dated 6.6.2009 fixed the total expenditure of the two children
at Rs. 15,400/- per month and by clubbing the income of the
husband and wife which together came to roughly Rs.46,000/- out
of which he seems he gave 1/3rd of the income for the maintenance
of children which came to Rs.15,400/-. He further directed that as
the wife is earning approximately Rs.8,400/-, the husband should
contribute Rs. 13,000/- per month and the remaining balance of Rs
2,400/- was to be borne by the wife leading to the present appeals.
9. It is an admitted fact that wife is an employee of MCD and net
income comes to approximately Rs. 8,467/- while the husband on
the other hand is employed with Airport Authority of India Ltd.
and his net income is approximately 20,000/- where 7,107/- are his
provident fund contributions.
10. It is the submission of the husband that he has also filed an
application under S.26 of HMA seeking custody of his minor
children which is still pending.
11. The wife has contested that the Ld. Trial Court has no power to
review the order dated 21.09.2009 as the husband was unable to
prove any error apparent on the face of the records .Further the
wife has averred that the husband has been promoted to the post of
manager and there has been an increase in his salary and the
allowances on account of promotion and further on account of
implementation of the 6th Pay Commission. It was also alleged that
he also owns a business under the name and style of M/s Galaxy
Financial Services apart from a car and certain immovable
properties. That the aforementioned factors were not considered
and taken into account by the ld. Trial court.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as both of them
have this maintenance order one seeking reduction and the other
seeking enhancement. So far as this challenge is concerned, it has
been pending for the last almost six years and it is very unfortunate
that the petition filed under the HMA Act has remained pending
from 2009 onwards till 2015 and main case of divorce has not
made any substantial progress so far. Therefore, if there are any
changed circumstances, the parties must go back to the trial court
and get the order modified rather than agitating before the High
Court. So far as the present orders are concerned, the learned
counsel for both the parties have not been able to show that there is
any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the order of
maintenance. Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MARCH 23, 2015
dm
