Delhi High Court
Saloni Mahajan vs Rahul Vig & Ors on 28 August, 2018
$~30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 28th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2085/2016
SALONI MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaaul, Ms.
Madhuri Dhingra & Mr.
Shoumya Karmakar, Advs.
versus
RAHUL VIG & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Osama Suhail & Mr. Mohit
Thareja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was concededly married to the first respondent
on 31.07.2010 and out of their cohabitation, a male child took birth on
30.11.2011. The marriage of the parties ran into rough weather
sometime around 28.08.2011 when the first respondent left for
Denmark statedly in connection with his gainful employment there.
The petitioner felt constrained to file a petition under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (no.C-
616/1/12), inter alia, seeking maintenance allowance to be awarded.
2. The first respondent, while resisting the said petition, filed an
affidavit disclosing his income and assets, copy whereof has been
submitted with the petition. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by her
order dated 22.12.2014, awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- in favour of
the petitioner making it effective form the date of filing of the petition
till final decision. The said order was taken in appeal (Crl. A. 3/2/16)
by the petitioner (wife) in the court of Sessions. The appeal was
allowed by order dated 03.03.2016 enhancing the compensation to
Rs.12,000/- p.m, though making it effective from the date of disposal
of the application by the trial court till final decision in the said case.
3. The said orders have been challenged by the petition at hand
under Section 482 Cr. PC, the contention of the petitioner being that
the maintenance allowance fixed is grossly inadequate. It is pointed
out that the first appellate court was misled to proceed on the
assumption that the petitioner was living in house no.A-300, Vikas
Puri, Delhi, which is owned by the father of the first respondent. It is
noted that by order dated 13.05.2014 of the Additional District Judge
in a suit (civil suit no.22/14) instituted by the father of the first
respondent, an ad interim injunction was issued on his application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) restraining the petitioner from forcibly entering or
interfering into the peaceful possession of the said party in respect of
property no.A-300, Vikas Puri, Delhi. Concededly, the said interim
injunction has been operating against the petitioner. Thus, it is wrong
to assume that she would have the benefit of a residential
accommodation at the cost or arrangement of the first respondent /
husband.
4. It is noted from the affidavit of the first respondent that he had
admitted that he was working for gain in Denmark, his salary being in
the sum of ~28,000/- Krone p.m, it concededly being equivalent to
Rs.55,500/- p.m.
5. Though it does appear that the expenses while working for gain
in Denmark would also be high, the maintenance allowance at meager
Rs.12,000/- p.m. particularly when there is no arrangement for
residential accommodation of the petitioner / wife and the child of the
parties is too inadequate. Given the level of earnings of the
respondent / husband, in the opinion of this court, interim maintenance
allowance in the sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. in favour of the petitioner /
wife and Rs.10,000/- p.m. in favour of the minor child seems to be
adequate.
6. For above reasons, the petition is allowed. The interim
maintenance allowance is revised to Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the
petitioner /wife and Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the minor child of the
parties. The amount shall be payable with effect from the filing of the
petition before the Magistrate till decision on the main petition, this
being subject to the final adjudication.
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 28, 2018/yg
