Full Text
CM(M) 384/2010
Date of Decision: March 22, 2010 PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Santosh, Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
(1) Whether reporters of local paper 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 ?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) CM APPL.5340/2010 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions Application stands disposed of. 2010:DHC:1708 CM(M) 384/2010 and CM APPL.5339/2010 (stay)
1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated 24.10.2009 whereby it granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- to the wife and the minor child respectively i.e. total sum of Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as H.M. Act), besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Trial Court while awarding interim maintenance did not properly consider the salary of the Petitioner which is only Rs.4,773/per month. Maintenance awarded is more than his salary whereas Respondent wife is employed as a teacher in a private school and is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the child.
3. Respondent claimed herself to be unemployed when she filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child, who is in her custody. She alleged that Petitioner is drawing a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as he is working as Accountant in Gayatri Steel Fabricators, Mayur Vihar.
4. Petitioner has placed on record photocopy of his salary certificate to show that he is drawing a salary of Rs.4,700/per month. However, he admitted that he owns a motorcycle and mobile phone. When asked, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the motorcycle has been purchased by the Petitioner after getting it financed. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that motorcycle owned by the Petitioner is financed. Besides, a person drawing a salary of Rs.4,773/- per month cannot pay installments of the amount taken on loan by him for purchasing the vehicle. He is also maintaining mobile for which he must be paying regular bills. His mobile expenses are not substantiated by way of any document like bills raised on him by the concerned Cellular Company. No document is placed on record to indicate that Respondent is employed as a teacher and is earning amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. Under these circumstances, Trial Court rightly held that Petitioner had not disclosed his actual income. From the status of living of the Petitioner, it is obvious that, besides his salary as projected to the court, he must be having additional income from other sources. A person earning Rs.4,700/- per month cannot afford to have a status of living which the Petitioner is maintaining.
6. To my mind, approach of the Trial Court was right in assessing the income of the Petitioner while granting maintenance to the Respondent and the minor child. In no manner, the quantum of interim maintenance awarded can be considered as on the higher side.
7. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 22, 2010 vk