Sushma Yadav & Ors. v. Gulshan Yadav

(1) Whether reporters oflocal paper may be allowed to see thejudgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whetherthejudgmentshould be reported in the Digest?

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH.J.(Oral) CM No.2530/2010 Ifor exemption) Exemption allowed subjectto alljustexceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM(M)192/2010

1. Parties to the petition got been married on April, CM(M)No.192/2010 Page1of[5] 2010:DHC:7210

2001. From the wedlock ofthe parties,a daughter; Anshul was bom th K on 7 June 2002 and a son; Aniket was bom on 13 September,

2003. Due to disputes and temperamental differences, they started living separately from 14^ May 2007. This resulted into filing ofa petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty. In the said petition, petitioner filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 ofthe Actseeking maintenance for herselfas well as for the minor children vdio are presently in her custody.

2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated December, 2009 awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the children with effect from the date of application i.e. 2C^ August, 2008. Dissatisfied with the said order,petitioner has filed this petition.

3. It is a common case of the parties that petitioner is employed as a teacher and is working for gain in Colonel Satsangi Kiran Memorial School, New Delhi. She is a resident teacher and has been provided residential accommodation by the School. Respondent is a clerk working with Ministry of Defence. Trial Court, on pemsal of salary slip of the respondent, took into consideration his net monthly pay as Rs.12,353/- and observed that CM(M)No.192/2010 Page2of[5] & salary slips of the respondents for the months of May, 2009 and June,2009 also reflect similar income. Considering financial status ofthe petitioner as well as ofthe respondent. Trial Court observed that total expenses of the children can be easily assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month. While doing so. Trial Court took into consideration the fact that petitioner is exempted from paying fees for one of her child. Both the children are studying in the same school where she is teaching. Trial Court also kept in mind that petitioner had failed to place on record relevant documents to show current school fee and other expenses borne for education of the children. While balancing the equity.Court awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for the children, being 50% of the expenses assessed by him at Rs.8,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to 'Smt Meenu Chopra Vs. Deepak Chopra',92(2001)DLT873, to submit that respondent and her children are entitled to live up to the standard as that ofthe petitioner. In the said case, maintenance was claimed by the wife at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Court took into consideration the fact that husband was a wealthy man leading an opulent life and his wife, being a partner in his prosperity, was entitled to enjoy and live with the same standard and equal dignity. CM(M)No.192/2010 Page3of[5] In the said case,wife was a non working woman and maintenance of the children was notin question.

5 It IS settled principle of law that where both the spouses are working, their income has to be clubbed together to determine the maintenance to be awarded to the children, so as to ensure that children enjoythe status and standards ofliving as that of their parents. Expenses of the children are to be shared by the working parents,according to their status and income.

6. Other judgment 'Mr.Sanjiv Sangwan Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sangwan, being CM(M) No.818/2003, decided by this Court on August, 2007 pertains to review petition filed by the respondent against order ofTrial Court dated 28^^ January,2003. In this case also, wife was a non working woman having no independent source of income and children were staying in the boarding school. Court assessed financial status ofthe husband and he was found to be a wealthy man. While upholding the order of Trial Court, petition was dismissed. None ofthese two judgments are ofany help to the cause ofthe petitioner.

7. Parties to the petition are financially placed almost at the same level. True that, petitioner is getting lesser salary than that of her husband. Fact remains, besides salary, she has also been CM(M)No.192/2010 Page4of[5] ARUNA SURESH,J. MARCH 12,2010 sb provided with residence by the School free of cost, wherein she along with her children is living. She, being a teacher in the same school, is getting concession in educational expenses of children. Considering perks of the petitioner besides her salary, both the spouses are almost at par in their respective financial status.

8. Under these circumstances. Trial Court ^\iien awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for both the children, being 50% ofthe tentative expenditure ofthe children every month,to my mind, is just and reasonable. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order ofthe Trial Court. Petition is accordingly dismissed.