Full Text
Translation output
$-37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 776/2010 with CrI. IVI.A. 18593-94/2010
RENU KATARIA Petitioner
Through i\/Ir. H.N. Takkar, IVlr. Deepak Anand, Advs.
CRL.REV.P. 776/2010 with CrI. IVI.A. 18593-94/2010
RENU KATARIA Petitioner
Through i\/Ir. H.N. Takkar, IVlr. Deepak Anand, Advs.
VERSUS
TARUN KUiVIAR RAUNTA Respondent
Through
Through
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
16.12.2010 This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order of interim maintenance underSection 125 Or. P.O. The petitioner and her child are living separate from the respondent/husband. The salary of petitioner is ? 24,000/- per month, she being a teacher. The salary of husband was around ? 31,000/- per month gross and net salary after deductions was ? 27,847/-. The learned trial court considered that husband and wife were able to maintain themselves and the responsibility of maintenance ofchild was on both of them. He, therefore, fixed interim maintenance of ^ 3,000/- per month to be paid by the husband to the wife for the maintenance of the child.
Petitioner's counsel states that medical expenses and expenses for aaya etc. have not been considered by the Trial Court.
Since the order passed by the Trial Court is of the nature of interim order, and all other expenses are to be proved before the Trial Court during evidence, the Trial Court shall pass fin^^rder on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concerning all
2010:DHC:10138 aspects. 1consider it is not proper to interfere with the order of interim maintenance at this stage.
The petition is disposed of with the directions that when final order is passed, the
Trial Court shall consider entire evidence which is brought on record.
DECEMBER 16, 2010 acm SHIV NARAYi5lTMjHINGRA,J
2010:DHC:10138
16.12.2010 This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order of interim maintenance underSection 125 Or. P.O. The petitioner and her child are living separate from the respondent/husband. The salary of petitioner is ? 24,000/- per month, she being a teacher. The salary of husband was around ? 31,000/- per month gross and net salary after deductions was ? 27,847/-. The learned trial court considered that husband and wife were able to maintain themselves and the responsibility of maintenance ofchild was on both of them. He, therefore, fixed interim maintenance of ^ 3,000/- per month to be paid by the husband to the wife for the maintenance of the child.
Petitioner's counsel states that medical expenses and expenses for aaya etc. have not been considered by the Trial Court.
Since the order passed by the Trial Court is of the nature of interim order, and all other expenses are to be proved before the Trial Court during evidence, the Trial Court shall pass fin^^rder on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concerning all
2010:DHC:10138 aspects. 1consider it is not proper to interfere with the order of interim maintenance at this stage.
The petition is disposed of with the directions that when final order is passed, the
Trial Court shall consider entire evidence which is brought on record.
DECEMBER 16, 2010 acm SHIV NARAYi5lTMjHINGRA,J
2010:DHC:10138
JUDGMENT