Full Text
•Ij
$-16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRLM.C. 2015I2Q11 RAJEEV DHALL Petitioner
Througli: jvir.Yogesh Yadav, Advocate
07.07.2011 Crl.M.A.7529/2011(Delav)
Keeping in view tlie reasons and circumstances nnentioned in the application the delay in filing the petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.A.7528/2011(Stav)
Since the hearing of the petition is expedited for today itself, this application is dismissed being infructuous.
Crl.M.C.2075/2011
ORDER
1. The petitioner has a grievance against order dated 02.02.2011 passed by Principle Judge Family Court, Rohini, whereby the trial Court has directed the respondent/husband (petitioner herein) to pay a sum of ?17,000/- per month to the respondent towards their maintenance from the date of application. It was further directed that petitioner shall pay a sum of m,000/- towards litigation expenses and he was also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of six months and pay the monthly maintenance amount regularly by 10''" of each month. 2011:DHC:11488 2^:2:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner subnnits that respondent No.l is working as a teacher. He further states that she is an agent of Oriental Insurance Company and from there also she is earning a lot, whereas the petitioner is having five dependants as under:-
1. Father (aged 80 years)
2. Mother (aged 75 years),
3. Sister (aged 50 years) who is widow and handicapped,
4. Niece (aged 22 years) of marriageable age and
5. His own son (aged 20 years) who is pursuing Law from D.Y. Patil College, Pune.
3. It be noted that petitioner is taking well care of all the dependants and is able enough to carry all his responsibilities including the niece and sister as mentioned above, who are not her legal responsiblities.
4. Therefore, it proves that petitioner is having sufficient income to provide maintenance to his wife and daughter more so when they are his legal responsibilities.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 02.02.2011 passed by Principle Judge Family Courts, Rohini.
6. Accordingly, CrI.M.C.2075/2011 is dismissed.
7. No order as to cost.
SURESH KAIT, J JULY 07, 2011 mr