Praveen Kumar vs Parul
2018 Latest Caselaw 3502 Del

#7

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                             Judgment delivered on: 01.06.2018


MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2018, CM APPL.24647/2018 (Exemption),
CM APPL.24648/2018 (Stay) & CM APPL.24649/2018 (Condonation of
Delay)

PK                                                        ..... Appellant



                                    versus



P                                                         ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant   : Mr. Vijay Dalal and Mr. Dushyant Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent  : None



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

                                 JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present appeal belatedly impugns the order dated 07.02.2018,

passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi in HMA

Case No.1550/2017, titled as 'P K vs. P', whereby the application of the

respondent-wife under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was partly allowed, directing the

appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim

maintenance to Master A, the minor son of the parties, who is in the custody

of the respondent-wife, till the disposal of the appellant-husband's petition

seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-husband would

urge that the impugned order is erroneous, inasmuch as, it failed to apportion

the expenditure incurred towards maintenance of the minor son Master A.

The above submission is predicated on the circumstance that both the parties

are gainfully employed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed

reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Padmja

Sharma vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, reported as AIR (2000) 4 SCC 266, in

support of his contentions that in the circumstances the parties are bound to

contribute for the maintenance of their child in the proportion of their

respective income.

4. In our considered view, the submission made on behalf of the

appellant is specious, inasmuch as, it is an admitted position that the

respondent-wife, who is employed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on

a contract basis, earns a fixed salary of Rs.25,980/- per month, whereas the

appellant-husband who is employed with the Delhi Police gets the net salary

of Rs.39,509/- per month. This admitted position clearly reflects that

although the respondent-wife is gainfully employed, the fixed salary that she

gets on contract basis is less in comparison to that earned by the appellant-

husband, who is employed against a permanent post in Delhi Police. Even

otherwise, the minor son Master A, who is in the care and custody of the

respondent-wife has been granted interim maintenance only at the rate of

Rs.10,000/- per month, which to say the least is the bare minimum

requirement to keep the body and soul together.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is devoid of

any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The pending applications

also stand disposed of.

6. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

VINOD GOEL (JUDGE) JUNE 01, 2018 dn