Delhi High Court
Suresh vs Rakhi on 25 May, 2023
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25th May, 2023
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 154/2023
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 154/2023
SURESH ..... Appellant
versus
RAKHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Suraj Yadav with Mr.D.B. Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 28342/2023 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 154/2023 & CM APPL. 28340/2023 (stay),
28341/2023 (for condonation of delay)
1. Appellant impugns order dated 22.03.2023 whereby the Family
Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to
the respondent and two minor children.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.05.2023
15:01:39
has not correctly assessed the salary certificate wherein though the
gross income is Rs.60,030/- but the net in hand salary is only
Rs.33,315/-. He submits that he has mother and two sons from the
previous marriage, who are to be taken care of.
3. We observe that the Family Court has noticed that despite
several opportunities, the appellant had not filed his income affidavit
and his right to file the same was closed. The Family Court has taken
into account the salary certificate of the appellant for the month of
December, 2022 wherein his gross salary has been shown as
Rs.60,030/- and net pay as Rs.33,315/-.
4. From the salary certificate, it appears that the appellant is
getting a sum of Rs.20,000/- deducted towards GPF contribution as
against the basic pay of Rs.39,900/-. It appears that the appellant is
voluntarily getting deducted a higher amount towards GPF
contribution. Consequently, the net pay is reduced to Rs.33,315/-
from the gross pay of Rs.60,030/-. The minimum statutory amount to
be contributed towards GPF is 6%. Keeping that into account, if the
deduction of only 6% was made, appellant would be entitled to draw a
net pay of approximately Rs.50,000/-.
5. Even if the contentions of the appellant were to be taken into
account that there are three dependents on his side, there are also three
dependents on the side of the respondent. In case the apportionment
of his income were to be done and one part each were to be awarded
to each family member and two parts to the petitioner, the net in hand
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.05.2023
15:01:39
salary of Rs.50,000/- would be divided by eight and then multiplied by
three for the respondent, which comes to about Rs.18,750/- and the
Family Court has only awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
6. If we were to apply the above rule of apportionment, we find
that the Family Court has appropriately assessed the maintenance for
the three dependants. We may also note that the two sons on the side
of the respondents are minor and school going and as such, the sum of
Rs.15,000/- would be bare minimum required for their subsistence.
7. In view of the above and especially in view of the fact that
appellant had failed to file any income affidavit before the Family
Court, we find that there is no ground made out to interfere with the
impugned order dated 23.02.2023 at the behest of the appellant.
8. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is consequently
dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
MAY 25, 2023
st
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.05.2023
15:01:39
