Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: January 27, 2015
Date of Decision: January 27, 2015
CRL.M.C. 309/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.1197-98/2015
MANOJ RATURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Advocate
MANOJ RATURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, vide order of 30th October, 2014, petitioner has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondent- wife and her child.
At the hearing, challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the income of petitioner was earlier at `6,000/- per month and at present, petitioner is unemployed and respondent No.2-wife is earning and so, grant of interim maintenance to respondents No. 2 & 3 is unjustified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order as well as trial
2015:DHC:786 Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 2 court’s order of 26th November, 2013, I find that the case of respondent
No.2 is that petitioner-husband is working as Administrative Manager and is earning `25,000/- per month whereas case of petitioner is that he is earning `6,000/- per month only and therefore, grant of interim maintenance to respondents 2 & 3 is unjustified, as petitioner is unemployed now.
Petitioner is stated to be a graduate who is an able bodied person and his income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, which in the instant case would come to more than `8,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of interim maintenance of
`4,000/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 is well justified.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015 r 2015:DHC:786
In proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, vide order of 30th October, 2014, petitioner has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondent- wife and her child.
At the hearing, challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the income of petitioner was earlier at `6,000/- per month and at present, petitioner is unemployed and respondent No.2-wife is earning and so, grant of interim maintenance to respondents No. 2 & 3 is unjustified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order as well as trial
2015:DHC:786 Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 2 court’s order of 26th November, 2013, I find that the case of respondent
No.2 is that petitioner-husband is working as Administrative Manager and is earning `25,000/- per month whereas case of petitioner is that he is earning `6,000/- per month only and therefore, grant of interim maintenance to respondents 2 & 3 is unjustified, as petitioner is unemployed now.
Petitioner is stated to be a graduate who is an able bodied person and his income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, which in the instant case would come to more than `8,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of interim maintenance of
`4,000/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 is well justified.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015 r 2015:DHC:786