Delhi High Court
Navdeep Koli vs Sudha on 7 October, 2015
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2015
% Date of Judgment : 07.10.2015
NAVDEEP KOLI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, Advocate.
versus
SUDHA ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C. M. APPL. Nos. 11551/2015 (Delay in filing) & 11552/2015 (Delay in
re-filing)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing and re-filing
the present appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 89/2015
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Family Court on
an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/husband
is without a job and his services were terminated by his Employer i.e.
M/s AMAZON EXPORTS PTE LTD. on 27.03.2014 on account of
his persistent absence and leave. Counsel further submits that the
appellant has been seeking employment but has been unsuccessful
and is presently working as a part-time Data Operator and is earning
Rs. 4,000/- p.m.
4. We have examined the order passed by the Family Court.
5. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.12.2010. Out
of their wedlock, a daughter was born on 29.10.2011. As per the
order of the Family Court, the respondent/wife has no source of
livelihood and she has to maintain herself and her minor daughter.
The Family Court has observed that in the reply to the application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant/husband
has claimed that he was earning Rs. 16,000/- p.m. and he is also
residing with his father.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant on a query raised by this court has
informed the court that that father of the appellant is providing the
day-to-day expenses to him for his needs. Along with the additional
affidavit, the appellant has filed internet print outs to show that he has
been regularly making applications for a regular job but has not been
successful. The print outs placed on record show that the appellant
was requested to register online as per e-mail dated 21.07.2014 but
nothing has been shown that actually the appellant had followed the
directions.
7. It has been repeatedly noticed by Courts that there is a tendency on
the part of the spouse not to truthfully disclose his true income for
proceedings for maintenance. In case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs.
District Judge Dehradun & Ors. : (1997) 7 SCC 7, it was held that
some guess work on the part of the Court is permissible.
8. We are also not convinced by the submissions made by the counsel
for the appellant that the appellant is working as a Data Operator and
earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. which amount is less than the minimum
wage being paid. The law is well settled. The appellant is duty bound
to maintain his wife and minor daughter and provide them the same
level of comfort and needs which the respondent was enjoying in her
matrimonial home. The Family Court has fixed a conservative
amount of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. to be paid by the appellant to the
respondent as monthly maintenance.
9. We find no grounds to interfere in this matter. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
10. At this stage, the appellant submits that he is agreeable for
reconciliation. We grant leave to the appellant to approach the
Mediation Centre or the Family Court.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 07, 2015
sc
