Umesh Bajaj v. Sarita Bajaj

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

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH. J. rOraH

1. Respondent/wife herein (petitioner in appeal) filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner/husband (respondent in appeal). In the said petition, petitioner/husband filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance CM(M)No.132/2010 Page 1 of[3] 2010:DHC:7190 from his wife.

2. According to the petitioner, respondent is employed as an UDC in DDA and is earning about Rs.28,000/- per month. She maintains a Maruti Zen and owns property bearing No.BF-72, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi besides other bank accounts. Whereas due to his old age, petitioner has no source of income, is suffering from tuberculosis, is disabled and is an asthmatic patient. Since he had no means of earning, he needed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to maintain himself from his wife and Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses. Vide impugned order dated 29^^ September 2009, Trial Court dismissed the application.

3. Today the petitioner himself is present in the Court. Though he is suffering from some disability, but is capable of free movement and is seen physically fit to earn his livelihood. He himself left his treatment of tuberculosis at AIIMS on 22"'' September, 2007. He was earlierunder treatmentof TB and was put on ATT i.e. Anti Tuberculosis Treatment at Moolchand hospital, which the petitioner left in between on 31®^ January, 2007. He is stated to be a smoker and alcoholic. This indicate that petitioner spends money on his bad habits and as per his own admission does not take proper treatment. CM(M)No.132/2010 Page 2 of[3] FEBRUARY 01, 2010 sb CM(M)No.132/2010 Page 3 of[3] •3

4. According to the respondent, petitioner was working as a broker for arranging loan between borrowers and money lenders, which fact is not disputed by the petitioner, though he has alleged that now he is unable to do this work. Besides, he is a skilled person and admittedly is doing contract of fixing glasses in Bal Bharti Air Force School. Petitioner has not disclosed his contract income from the said School. Thus, it is clear that petitioner is earning for gain and is capable of maintaininghimself This petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

5. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed accordingly. CM No.1903/2010 (for stay)

6. With disposal of the petition itself, this application has become infmctuous and the same is accordingly disposed of ARUNA SURESH, J.