Hema v. Vinod Kumar

1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge by virtue of which the learned trial court has granted maintenance of `4,000/- per month to the petitioner for her own self and for her minor child. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the aforesaid order and enhancement of the ad interim maintenance to a sum of `50,000/- per month for herself and her minor child apart from litigation expenses of `31,000/-. 2013:DHC:1772

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The respondent/husband had filed a petition being HMA No.57/2011 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce on the basis of cruelty before the learned trial court. The petitioner/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance @ `50,000/- per month for her own self and for her minor child and litigation expenses of `31,000/-. It may be pertinent here to mention that the parties had got married on 13.11.2008 and out of the wedlock, one issue was born on 12.4.2010.

3. In the application filed by the petitioner/wife seeking maintenance, she had stated that the respondent/husband is a man of means and he is running the business of manufacturing and sale of chappals at three places, that is, at (1) A-722, Ground Floor, Madipur Colony, Delhi; (2) WZ-512, Madipur, Delhi and (3) an another factory at tenanted premises in Delhi. It was alleged that he had employed about 20-25 workers and was conveniently making not less than `1 lac per month. It was also alleged that the respondent had various bank accounts, ATM cards and was earning around `40,000/- per month from the aforesaid bank accounts, deposits and FDR’s. In addition to this, it was also stated that he had let out third floor of the property bearing No.A-722, Madipur Colony, Delhi and was earning a rent of `3,000/- per month. On the basis of this, ad interim maintenance of `50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of `31,000/- is claimed by the petitioner.

4. The respondent/husband had filed reply and contested all these facts. He had stated that he is only earning `6,000/- per month and he has to maintain his parents also. It was alleged by the respondent/husband that so far as the petitioner is concerned, she is earning `5,000/- per month and apart from this, she is also working as a beautician and mehndi applicator on freelance basis and accordingly, earning conveniently a sum of `7,000-10,000/- on each occasion. It was stated that she is earning sufficient amount of money to sustain herself and her minor child.

5. The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments and by taking the affidavit of the respondent/husband to be more credible wherein he had stated that he is earning `6,000/- per month, passed an order dated 30.1.2013 directing the payment of `3,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the petitioner/wife and a sum of `1,000/- per month to the minor child, though it was stated by the learned trial judge that the respondent/husband should work more in order to pay the maintenance to the petitioner and the minor child. The reason for not accepting the version with regard to assets and the earnings of the respondent/husband as given by the petitioner/wife was that the petitioner had not chosen to file a detailed affidavit in terms of the judgment of this court passed in Puneet Kaur vs. Inderjeet Singh Sahwney; (2012) ILR I Delhi 73.

6. I have gone through the impugned order. I find myself to be in full agreement with the analysis made by the learned trial judge of prima facie evidence adduced by the parties, I have no reason to disagree that the petitioner is making a tall and exaggerated claim with regard to the assets of the respondent/husband only in order to extract higher amount of maintenance. She has not placed any documentary evidence on record either before the trial court or before this court which would show that the respondent/husband has been the owner of the abovementioned shops or his earnings as alleged.

7. As against this, the respondent/husband has filed a detailed affidavit showing his income and the assets in terms of judgment passed in Puneet Kaur’s case (supra). The trial court has taken the income of the husband to be `6,000/- and awarded the maintenance to the petitioner, accordingly, I feel that there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the finding returned by the trial court and accordingly, the petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. APRIL 08, 2013 ‘AA’