Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Bhutani vs Manya Bhutani on 1 August, 2017
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 131/2017, CM No. 27158/2017 & CM No.
27159/2017
ANIL KUMAR BHUTANI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate.
versus
MANYA BHUTANI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 01.08.2017
1. The appellant has filed the present petition assailing an order dated
27.05.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, North West District, New
Delhi allowing an application filed by the respondent/wife for enhancement
of the maintenance payable to her and two minor children in her custody.
2. As per the impugned order, initially, an interim maintenance at the rate
of Rs. 2,500/- per month was awarded by the learned Family Court vide order
dated 05.09.2009. The said maintenance was paid to the respondent not only
for sustaining herself, but also for her two minor school going children.
Subsequently, vide order dated 09.04.2012, the said maintenance was
enhanced to a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month.
3. After a lapse of four years, the respondent filed an application for
enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the living expenditure has
increased considerably and that the respondent is required to pay a tuition fees
of Rs.2,400/- per month for her son who is studying in class 11 th in the
Science subject and for the younger daughter studying in 6th class. Further, the
respondent had explained that there were several other household expenses
that she had to incur and due to increase in the prices of almost everything, she
could not manage with Rs. 4,500/- per month.
4. A reply in opposition to the captioned application was filed by the
appellant/husband, stating inter alia that he was making a livelihood by
selling milk on commission basis for which he was paid Rs. 0.90 paisa for per
litre of milk sold and that he was continuing to earn the same amount over the
past several years. He thus stated that there was no enhancement in his
income for being called upon to pay additional amounts to the respondent and
the children. The appellant, however, failed to file a copy of his passbook to
reflect the amounts that he had been depositing in his saving bank account
after 9.4.2012 or for that matter, the amount of commission received by him
from DMS, on whose behalf he is selling milk in the market.
5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the
parties, the learned Family Court has directed the appellant to pay an
enhanced amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondent for maintaining
herself and her two children, effective from the date of the filing of the
application i.e. 05.09.2016, till the pendency of the main petition.
7. The core argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
learned Family Court did not take into consideration the fact that the
respondent is working as a private teacher in a school as well as giving
tuitions and earning a handsome remuneration of around Rs. 20,000/- per
month and if the said amount is considered, the respondent cannot claim any
enhancement of maintenance.
6. We may note that the aforesaid submission is not backed by any
documents that the appellant placed before the learned Family Court or for
that matter, before us. The pleadings in the application asking for enhanced
maintenance, as filed by the respondent, are not on record, but learned
counsel for the appellant does not deny the fact that the appellant did not file
any document to demonstrate that the respondent has been working as a
private teacher in a school and giving tuitions and earning a monthly
remuneration to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The Court cannot be
expected to accept bald submissions based on surmises and conjectures.
7. No other plea has been raised before us to assail the impugned
judgment.
8. In our opinion, the reasoning given for the decision arrived at by the
learned Family Court, is unexceptionable.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine as being devoid
of merit along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 01, 2017
ss
