Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.04.2015
MASTER ARHAM(MINOR) & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sunil Mund, Mrs. Bedashree Borah and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.
IA No.7085/2014
JUDGMENT
1. By this application, the plaintiffs seek grant of ad interim maintenance and living expenses.
2. The present suit is filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is averred that plaintiff No.2 was married to the defendant on 25.11.2007 and they were blessed with a son, plaintiff No.1 who was born on 29.03.2009. Plaintiff No.1 is staying now with plaintiff No.2. For various reasons ultimately the plaintiffs had to move out from the matrimonial home on 11.05.2010.
3. A settlement was arrived at before the Mediation. In terms of the settlement, the plaintiff No.2 had agreed to go back to the defendant 2015:DHC:3292 after conclusion of the examination. It was further agreed that the defendant shall deposit Rs.10,000/- per month in the account of plaintiff No.2 for monthly household expenses from May 2010 onwards. Other terms and conditions were also agreed upon.
4. Pursuant to the settlement the plaintiffs joined the matrimonial home on 18.08.2010. Suddenly on 18.01.2012 it is stated that the defendant for no reasonable cause drove the plaintiffs out of the matrimonial home against the will of the plaintiffs. It is stated that thereafter the defendant has not cared about the well being of the plaintiffs. It is admitted that the defendant is depositing Rs.6000/- per month with the plaintiff but it is said that this is not an adequate amount for the plaintiffs to live life in a metropolitan city like Delhi.
5. Hence the present suit is filed seeking maintenance @ Rs.30,000/per month w.e.f. 02.11.2008.
6. As per the plaint the defendant is working with a reputed multinational named John Deere Technology Centre at Pune as an Engineer in I.T. Support and is drawing the salary of Rs.70,000/- per month apart from other perks. There are allegations that the defendant and his family own immoveable properties in Pune, Udaipur and Ghaziabad.
7. Pursuant to the orders of this court dated 04.02.2015 the defendant has placed on record his income tax return and form 16 for the last three years. Relevant form 16 shows that the defendant has received a salary of Rs.760409/- for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has opposed the present application. He has submitted that plaintiff No.2 is more qualified than the defendant and is earning more than the defendant. It is further stated that since plaintiff No.2 has deserted the defendant, she is not entitled to seek any maintenance from the defendant. As far as maintenance of plaintiff No.1/child is concerned, the defendant states that he deposits Rs.6000/- per month for the expenses of the child with plaintiff No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the defendant further states that out of Rs.7,60,000/- per annum deduction of the income tax and EMI for housing a balance of Rs.25,000/- per month is left with him from which he has to take care of himself and his parents.
10. Learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon certain computer print outs to demonstrate that plaintiff No.2 is earning more than the defendant. First print out shows that plaintiff No.2 has placed her profile whereby she is stated to be an M.A. in English and having a B.Ed. Degree. She has stated that she is willing to take tuitions of various students in English @ Rs.1000/- to Rs.1800/- per hour.
11. Another print out is relied upon which shows that certain classes are being conducted by plaintiff No.2. The relevant portion of the print out states that she has so many enquiries for classes and admission and that she has decided to start a new batch. Relying on these print outs it is averred that plaintiff No.2 is earning more than the defendant.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has denied the averments of the defendant. He states that plaintiff No.2 is unemployed and is ready to make a statement before this Court in this regard. He states that plaintiff No.2 has no source of income. He states that averments in the plaint are supported by the affidavit of plaintiff No.2 herself.
13. As far as the earning capacity of the plaintiff is concerned, in my opinion the reliance of the defendant on the computer print outs is misplaced. The print outs appear to be more of an attempt on the part of the plaintiff No.2 to look for students for coaching. The statement that she has decided to a start fresh batch of classes appears to be an attempt to advertise for classes and an attempt to persuade students to join the classes. It is possible that plaintiff No.2 may have got some students from whom she might have been charging some coaching fees but no definite conclusion can be arrived at on this aspect based on these computer print out.
14. There is no dispute that as per the print outs of Form 16 placed on record by the defendant, the salary of the defendant is Rs.7,60,000/- per annum less Rs.27,000/- deducted as tax.
15. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Neetmal Jain (2010) 12 SCC
242. In the said judgment the Supreme Court held as follows: “10. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.” Hence while passing an order of interim maintenance, the order of its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court is not necessary.
16. Keeping in view that plaintiff No.2 is unemployed and also has to take care of a minor child/plaintiff No.1, who is 6 years of age, I fix the interim maintenance for the plaintiffs @ Rs.17,500/- per month. This amount will be paid from the date of the filing of the suit. The arrears of the maintenance shall be paid to the plaintiffs by the defendant within four months from today. He will pay the monthly maintenance amount by 7th of each month.
17. With these observations, the application stands disposed of. CS(OS) No.802/2014 List before the Joint Registrar on 20.05.2015, the date already fixed.
JAYANT NATH, J. APRIL 10 2015 rb/n