Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 1092/2013 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
CM(M) 1092/2013
PRADEEP SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
PRADEEP SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
MS SANGITA JANGID ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Jangid, Advocate
Through: Mr. Pradeep Jangid, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR SUNIL GAUR, J (Oral)
Vide impugned order of 28th May, 2013, respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses stands allowed. Respondent has been granted pendente lite maintenance of `6,500/- per month and litigation expenses of `8,500/-.
Learned counsel for petitioner-husband assails the impugned order on the ground that as per the affidavit of petitioner, he is working as book-binder and is earning `5,000/- to `6,000/- per month and so, the grant of pendente lite maintenance amount, which is more than his earning, is totally unjustified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, copy of the affidavit of petitioner (Annexure -P-2), I find that the bank statement of petitioner contradicts his affidavit as there are different entries in the bank
2014:DHC:5525
Vide impugned order of 28th May, 2013, respondent’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses stands allowed. Respondent has been granted pendente lite maintenance of `6,500/- per month and litigation expenses of `8,500/-.
Learned counsel for petitioner-husband assails the impugned order on the ground that as per the affidavit of petitioner, he is working as book-binder and is earning `5,000/- to `6,000/- per month and so, the grant of pendente lite maintenance amount, which is more than his earning, is totally unjustified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, copy of the affidavit of petitioner (Annexure -P-2), I find that the bank statement of petitioner contradicts his affidavit as there are different entries in the bank
2014:DHC:5525
CM(M) 1092/2013 Page 2 account of petitioner ranging from `15,000/- to `30,000/- and no plausible answer has been given by petitioner regarding the said entries.
In the impugned
In the impugned
JUDGMENT
, petitioner’s income has been rightly assessed as `20,000/- per month as there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was earning just `6,000/- per month and this bald plea has been taken by petitioner to defeat the legitimate claim of respondent.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 s 2014:DHC:5525
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 28, 2014 s 2014:DHC:5525