Gulshan Yadav vs Sushma Yadav & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8626 Del

$-29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                DECIDED ON : 19th NOVEMBER, 2015

+            CRL.REV.P.158/2014 & CRL.M.A.No.4063/2014

      GULSHAN YADAV                                        ..... Petitioner

                          Through :    Mr.Rajan Chaudhary, Advocate.


                          VERSUS



      SUSHMA YADAV & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents

                          Through :    Mr.Amit Chadda, Advocate.

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

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner

to impugn the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 07.12.2013 of

learned Judge Family Courts, whereby in the proceedings under Sections

125 Cr.P.C. maintenance @ `4,500/- per month each was awarded to

respondents from the date of filing of the petition. The revision petition is

contested by the respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. The petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @

`9,000/- in all to his both children from the date of filing of the petition

i.e. October 01, 2007. During the course of arguments, it was urged that

the petitioner has no objection to the grant of maintenance to the children

@ `4,500/- per month each from the date of impugned order i.e.

07.12.2013. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved whereby he has been

directed to pay maintenance @ `4,500/- per month each to the children

w.e.f. October 01, 2007, when his salary was only `10,917/- per month.

Counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner has concealed

material facts and did not reveal that after implementation of 6th Pay

Commission recommendations, he got huge arrears of enhanced salary

w.e.f. January, 2006.

3. By an order dated 10.03.2014, this Court directed to the

petitioner to continue to pay maintenance @ `4,500/- per month each to

the children from the date of order i.e. December, 2013. He was further

directed to clear the arrears from the date of filing of the petition @

`2,500/- per month to each of the child. In the impugned judgment,

petitioner's income was assessed `28,395/- (Gross pay) and `21,355/-

(Net pay) taking into consideration the salary certificate for July, 2013.

The petitioner has placed on record salary slip for the month of February,

2008 when his gross salary was `10,917/- and after deductions net salary

was `6,307/-. As per salary certificate for March, 2009, the gross salary

was `17,113/- and net pay was `12,503/-. Apparently, the income which

has been assessed at present taking into consideration the latest salary

certificate of the petitioner was much below in the previous years in 2007

and onwards. The respondents have not placed on record any document to

show as to how much arrears were received by the petitioner after

implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report or to what extent his

salary was revised.

4. Taking into consideration all the aspects, it is ordered that the

petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance @ `4,500/- per month to

each of the children from the date of the impugned order. However, he

shall pay maintenance to the children @ `3,000/- per month from the date

of filing the petition i.e. October 01, 2007, till its disposal by the

impugned order on 07.12.2013. Arrears (if any) be cleared within a

month.

5. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

6. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 19, 2015 / tr