Delhi High Court
Gopal Chawla vs Yogita Saxena @ Pooja Chawla & Anr on 6 December, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 924/2019
Date of Decision: 06.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
GOPAL CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee and Mr. Bikram
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
YOGITA SAXENA @ POOJA CHAWLA & ANR...... Respondents
Through: Mr.(appearance not given), Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
assailing the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 passed by Judge, Family
Court, Shahdara District, Delhi wherein the Court granted maintenance of
Rs.8000/- to the respondents (Rs.5000/- to Respondent no.1 and Rs.3000/-
to Respondent no.2)
2. The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 was
solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 09.07.2011.
A daughter namely Dipanshi (Respondent No. 2) was born out of the said
wedlock on 11.07.2013. However, due to difference between the parties,
Respondent No.1 left her matrimonial house alongwith Respondent No. 2
on 19.03.2013.
3. Subject petition was filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 125
Cr.P.C contending that she had to leave her matrimonial house on account
of incessant demands of dowry by the petitioner and her in-laws. The
Respondent also contended that she has no source of income and has to
maintain her minor daughter as well and sought for maintenance of at least
Rs.10,000/- per month each for herself and for her daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order
on the ground that same is premised on the minimum wages schedule
applicable for labour class/unskilled workman. He further submits that the
petitioner is just doing repair work of invertors and he is only earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to
the Certificate of Income dated 17.07.2019, issued by the Tehsildar. It is
his submissions that the aforesaid certificate was obtained subsequent to
passing of the aforesaid order and the same shows the status of the income
of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the aforesaid
certificate is issued by the SDM and is not binding. He further submits
that the petitioner is rather an owner of a shop which fact is not considered
by the Family Court in the impugned order.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh
Salkan, reported as 2018 SCC Online SC 1643 held as under:
"16. The principle invoked by the High Court for determination of
monthly maintenance amount payable to the appellant on the basis
of notional minimum income of the respondent as per the current
minimum income of the respondent as per the current minimum
wages in Delhi, in our opinion, is untenable...''
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court has
awarded the interim maintenance on the basis of 'Minimum Wages
Scheduled' applicable w.e.f. 01.11.2018. In view of the decision in Reema
Salkan (Supra), the aforesaid assumption of income of the petitioner made
by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded back to the
Family Court for fresh consideration.
8. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions
from the petitioner, submits that without prejudice to his rights and
contentions, the order of interim maintenance till date i.e., Rs.48,000/-
shall be paid in two instalments. First of such instalment of Rs.25,000/-
shall be paid within a period of two day from today and remaining
Rs.23,000/- shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today.
9. It is made clear that the aforesaid payment shall be made without
prejudice to rights and contentions of either of the parties.
10. The petition is disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.
Dasti.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 06, 2019/ssc
