Sujata Yadav v. Mukesh Yadav & Ors.

1. The petitioner has filed a complaint vide CCNo. 54916109 under Section 12 of D.V. Act, P.S. Patel Nagar, before the learned Mahila Court, Central District, Delhi.

2. Vide order dated 20.08.2010, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila court, Central District, Delhi awarded maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- per month which included the maintenance her minor'daughter.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2010, the petitioner ts filed a criminal appeal for enhancement against the said order, in the court of Sessions, Central District, Delhi.

4. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed a criminal appeal against the impugned order dated 20.08.2010.

5. Vide common order dated 10.02.20L[1], both the appeals were disposed of by Sh. O.P. Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the quantum of maintenance as awarded by the learned M.M., Mahila % 2011:DHC:8977 {i /\ I Y I court, Central District, Delhi on 20.08.2010 *as' reduced to Rs.1300/- per month each for wife and minor daughter. Right of residence in House No. 26LA-4, Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi was also set aside.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.20LL, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. lt is submitted by learned counel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by reducing the maintenance to Rs.2600/- has caused great prejudice to her and the minor child as the child has been admitted to regular school and the amount of Rs.1300/- each is not enough for the day to day expenditure of both mother and minor daughter.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that according to the salary certificate dated 09.03.2010 issued by Yash industries, the total salary of the petitioner is Rs.5100/- per month. More so, presently, the husband of the petitioner i.e respondent No. 1 is jobless and therefore, earning nothing.

9. lt is further submitted that earlier the respondent No.1 was employed as Constable in C.R.P.F,, however, due to some departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, he took the job at Yash industries.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several properties in the name of respondents. He further submits that the father of the respondent No. 1 is a Property Dealer and possesses at least 8 properties in Delhi in his name, the details of the same is on record in the trial court.

11. Petitioner, who is personally present in the court submits,' L that he does not own any property in Delhi and is jobless at present. L[2]. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the properties belong to respondent No. 2 and these properties have been registered in his name, all were purchased prior to the marriage of respondent No. 1.

13. After hearing the counsels for the parties, I am of the view, there is no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 1 is not earning anything, therefore, he is not able to pay the maintenance to the wife and his daughter. Since, the petitioner is legally wedded wife, who is also maintaining her child who is five years old and the respondent No. 1 is an able bodied person, he is legally bound to maintain his unemployed wife and the minor child. L[4]. Keeping in view, the above discussion in mind, I set aside the order dated 10.02,2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central District, Delhi.

15. The respondent No. 1 shall continue to pay the maintenance s awarded by learned MM, Mahila court, Central District, Delhi @ {@ Rs.5000/- per month.

16. The respondent No.l is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within a month

17. The respondent No. t has handed over a Bankers cheque No. 422260 drawn on SBl, Jaffarpur Kalan in the name of Ms. Sujata Yadav/petitioner dated 06.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.30,000/in lieu of arrears of maintenance which is accepted by the petitioner, who is personally present in the court with her father Sh. Shyam Sunder.