Full Text
Date of Reserve : 26th August, 2011
Date of Decision: 16th September, 2011 cM(M) 265/2011
PRAMOD VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Roshan Saini, Adv.
Through : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. E
PRAMOD VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Roshan Saini, Adv.
Through : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. -r
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? cM(M) No.265/2o77 6r Crl.R.P. No.7O2/2O77 Adt' W 2011:DHC:1964[1] ff
JUDGMENT
J.R. MIDHA, I. *
1. The petitioner is seeking reduction of the maintenance of <10,000/- per month awarded by the learned Trial Court to the respondent.
2. The parties were married on 19th February, 2006 and they lived together up to 1ltn June, 2006. A son was born out of the wedlock on !2th February, 2007, who is living with the respondent. The petitioner has filed a petition for divorce against the respondent under Section fS(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent also filed an interim application in the petition under Section I25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thg learned Trial Court passed a common order directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance of <10,000 per month to the respondent.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that his services were terminated by the employer on 30th September, 2010 and he is not earning since then.
4. The learned Trial Court has taken the income of the petitioner to be {20,000/- on the ground that he was drawing a salary of <25,000/- in his employment at the time of marriage; he is competent CM(M) No.265/2O77 & Crt.R.P. No.7o2/2of,[2]
5. On 26th August, 2OLL, the petitioner was examined on oath by this Court to ascertain whether the plea set-up by the petitioner is true. The petitioner stated on oath that he was drawing a salary of '\\ {25,000/- till 3gth September, 2010. He claimed to be unemploybd -------.thereafter and unable to find any job. The petitioner admitted that he has not applied for any job thereafter through any placement agency or through newspaper and has tried to find out the job only through friends. He further stated that he had applied for job at 3-4 pla.ces but he does not even remember the names of the companies where he has applied.
6. The observations made by this Court in the case of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, LAO (2OO7l DLT 16 are relevant to this case and are reproduced hereunder:-
t[5] CM(M) No.265/2ozl & CrI.R.P. No.zo2l2ozz U
7. From the statement recorded before this Court, it appears that the plea set up by the petitioner is not true. lt is not believable that a qualified person would not even apply for a job after the contract for the first job was over. After losing a job of {25,000/- per month, a prudent man would make all possible efforts to procure a new job unless he has sufficient income and means. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly presumed that the petitioner h.as concealed his true income. This case warrants drawing of presumption under Section ]L[4] of the lndian Evidence Act and the learned Trial Court has drawn fair and reasonable presumption of the petitioner's income to be t20,000/- per month.
8. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Court. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. ] It September 16, ?OLL Dev cM(M) No.265/2o77 6r crl.R.P. No.7o2/2O77 J.R. MIDHA, J.