Delhi High Court
Sonu vs Rajni on 22 April, 2016
$~
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 9/2016 & CM Nos. 1863, 1865/2016
% Date of decision : 22nd April, 2016
SONU ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja and
Mr. Yogesh Kr. Rana, Advs.
with appellant
versus
RAJNI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Adv. with
respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Gita Mittal, J
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The parties were married on 27th November, 2010 and from
their marriage, they were blessed with a daughter on 20 th October,
2011. According to the appellant, on 20th September, 2012, the
respondent left the matrimonial home with the daughter
accompanying her brother under the pretext of having to attend a
function at the parental home. She never returned thereafter. The
appellant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act on 24th March, 2014 praying for dissolution of the
marriage of the parties for a decree of divorce. On 12th August,
2014, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 and 26
of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for grant of interim
maintenance to the respondent and her daughter. Adjudication in
this application was delayed. Therefore, by the impugned order
dated 16th September, 2015, the Family Court directed the
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent as an interim
measure without prejudice to his rights and contentions.
3. When the present appeal was listed before us on 19th
January, 2016, we had granted interim stay of the direction for
payment of the amount in the impugned order dated 16 th
September, 2015 subject to the appellant paying an amount of
`12,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance with effect
from 1st January, 2016 as well as litigation expenses of `11,000/-.
We are informed that the litigation expenses have been paid. The
appellant is also paying the interim maintenance fixed by us.
4. We may note that the Family Court has noted that the
appellant is working as a safai karamchari in East MCD drawing a
salary of `26,428/-.
5. We are further apprised today that the family of the appellant
consists of his mother and one unmarried sister. The appellant's
mother is working in a corporation school as a safai karamchari. In
as much as the appellant is living in a joint family with her, it is
obvious that her income would require to be considered as part of
the family earnings and would be considered while directing
payment of maintenance to the respondent. (Ref: Renu Jain v.
Mahabir Prasad Jain (AIR 1987 Delhi 43)
6. It is also well settled that maintenance under Section 24 and
26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be payable by the
appellant with effect from the date of the application which is 12 th
August, 2014. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do
not find the direction by the family court also to pay the sum of
Rs.1 lakh as an ad hoc amount is unreasonable.
7. However, in the interests of justice, we are of the view that
the appellant deserves to be permitted to pay the said amount in
instalments.
In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of with the
following directions :-
(i) The appellant is permitted to pay the sum of `1 lakh in
terms of the order dated 16th September, 2015 to the
respondent in twenty equated instalments commencing
from 15th April, 2016.
(ii) The appellant shall continue to pay interim
maintenance to the respondent in terms of our order
dated 19th January, 2016 till the amount is varied or
modified by the learned Single Judge till decision in
the application under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act which is stated to be pending before the
Family Court.
(iii) It shall be open for the Family Court to pass any order
uninfluenced by the order in which maintenance fixed
by us on 19th January, 2016. The Family Court shall
also direct appropriate adjustment of the amounts
which are paid by the appellant in terms of the order
dated 16th September, 2015 as well as the orders
passed by us.
This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
CM No.1865/2016
Heard.
For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. This
application is allowed in the above terms.
CM No.1863/2016
In view of the disposal of the appeal, this application does
not survive for adjudication and is hereby disposed of.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
APRIL 22, 2016/kr
