Full Text
CMriVD 163/2010
Date ofDecision;February 04,2010 RAVIDUBEY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vikas Mahajan, Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
(1) Whether reporters oflocal paper may be allowed to see thejudgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether thejudgmentshould be reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH.J.(Oral) CM No.2178/2008(delay in refilingl in CMfMl 163/2010
1. There is six days delay in refiling the petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Delay in refiling the petition is hereby condoned. CM No.2178/2008 rfor exemptionl in CMriVH 163/2010
3. Exemption allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
4. Application stands disposed of. CM(M)No.132/2010 Page[1] of[4] 2010:DHC:7197 ->0 CMfM^ 163/2010
5 Parties to the petition were married according to Hindu Rites on 7'*' December, 2004. Out ofthe wedlock ofthe parties, a female child namely Bhavyata was born on 16"'March,2007 and is now in the custody ofthe respondent. Marriage could not survive and the parties started living separately.
6. Petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce against the respondent. In the said petition for divorce, respondent filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking pendent lite maintenance from the petitioner till the pendency of the divorce petition.
7. Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 4^ November, 2009 was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.45,000/per month to the respondent/wife and the minor child from the date offiling ofthe application till the disposal ofthe main petition.
8. Being dissatisfied by the said order, a petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution has been filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that he is earning about Rs.1.20 lacs per month. In the petition, respondent had claimed maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month for herself and the minor CM(M)No.132/2010 Page2of[4] daughter.
9 Grievance of the petitioner is that the court did not consider the expenses of the petitioner incurred by him, while awarding maintenance,which according to him is on the higher side. I find no basis for the alleged grievance. Only deduction, to which petitioner is entitled to, are his contribution towards the GPF/PPF within the permissible limit, premium towards LIC policy and the income tax payable by him. A person who is earning a sum ofRs.
1.20 lacs per month is financially sound and can provide maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month to his wife and child. It is pertinent that respondent, being wife ofthe petitioner and Bhavyata, being his daughter, are entitled to enjoy the standard of living in which the petitioner is living with such a handsome income/salary.
10. This is not even half of the salary of the petitioner, which,under the normal circumstances,could have been awarded by the court as maintenance to the wife and the child. Under these circumstances,to my mind, maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable and need no interference. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed. CM(M)No.132/2010 Page3of[4] S) CM No.2176/2010(for stay)
11. Since petition has been dismissed,this application has become infmctuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. ARUNASURESH,J. FEBRUARY 04,2010 sb