Ashok Murgai v. Master Aditya Murgai

1. Whether the 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? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3rd January, 2011. Today this matter is effective No.1 on the Regular Board. No one appears for the appellant although it is 2.45 P.M. I have, therefore, perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

2. The challenge by means of the present first appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 10th July, 2000, whereby the claim of the respondent No.2 towards her maintenance and the maintenance of the minor child, who is the respondent No.1 herein, was disposed of by 2011:DHC:489 disallowing the claim of maintenance of the wife, Mrs. Achala Murgai, but the claim of maintenance of the minor child was allowed by granting a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month.

3. The Trial Court has recorded that both the parents i.e., the plaintiff No.1/mother and the present appellant/husband had concealed facts as to their income and properties. As a result of this, the Trial Court refused to grant maintenance to the wife. However, the Trial Court noted that the responsibility to maintain the respondent No.1 herein was of both the parents and, therefore, considering the income of both the parents, who had immovable properties in posh localities of South Delhi and also other movable properties including amounts being received towards rent and so on, granted by balancing all the factors, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month for maintenance of the respondent no.1.

4. In the opinion of this Court, considering the financial status of the parties, as disclosed in the impugned judgment, grant of Rs.4,000/- per month against the appellant and in favour of the respondent No.1 herein, cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or perverse. This Court is not entitled to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court only because two views are possible. This Court does not interfere with one view which is taken by the Trial Court unless the same is illegal or perverse or causes grave injustice. I do not find that any such ingredient exists in the impugned judgment in the facts of the present case.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM Nos.1143/2001 and 1491/2001 stand disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back.

JANUARY 27, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. vk