Praveen Lochab v. Sarita@ Mausam & Anr.

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

JUDGMENT

1. Since caveator has appeared on advance notice through Mr. Anand Advocate, who accepts notice, caveat stands disposed of CM(M) 138/2010 CM(M) No.138/2010 Page I of[4] 2010:DHC:7196

2. Petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce against the respondent under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') along with pendent lite maintenance for herself and her two minor children, namely, Yash and Lakshita.

3. The Trial court vide its impugned order dated December, 2009 was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.33,000/per month to respondent No.l. and Rs.20,000/- per month each for the two children from the date of filing of the application besides Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses. While doing so. Trial Court took into consideration income of the petitioner from his services, Rs.15,000/- per month as agricultural income from the agricultural land situated at Sonepat, Haryana, Rs.50,000/- per month as rental income from H.No.R-235, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi and another sum ofRs.50,000/- per month from money lending business.

4. To my mind. Trial Court assessed the income of the petitioner on the higher side. No evidence is placed on record by the respondent to indicate that petitioner is doing the business of money lending and is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month from the same. Similarly, no proof of rental income has been placed on record. It is not disputed that the house at Narela is owned by parents of the CM(M)No.138/2010 Page 2 of[4] petitioner. It is not known if it is an ancestral property. But according to the respondent, this is an ancestral property and therefore, petitioner has a share in the same. Similar are the circumstances regarding agricultural mcome. Though petitioner has alleged that hehas been disinherited by his parents, the fact remains, primafacie when petitioner has a share in the ancestral property, he cannot be disinherited from his share by his parents.

5. Therefore, considering income of the petitioner from the agricultural land, rental income as well as his salary, the Trial Court awarded exorbitant maintenance to the respondent and her children. Similarly, litigation expenses awarded to respondent are also on higher side.

6. Hence, petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 11^ December, 2009 is hereby modified. Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each for the two children from the date offiling ofthe application i.e. 2"** June, 2009 besides another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is noted that petitioner has consented to this order. Petitioner shall payarrears of maintenance for two months along with maintenance for the month ofJanuary 2010 and February 2010 on orbefore 26'^ February, 2010 CM(M) No. 138/2010 Page 3 of[4] i.e. the date fixed before the Trial Court. He shall pay the litigation expenses along with maintenance for March 2010 by 31'^ March, 2010 and shall continue to pay the maintenance as fixed with one month arrears by 1of each month till the arrears are cleared and thereafter shall continue to pay the maintenance as awarded to the respondent and the children till the final disposal of the petition for divorce.

7. An attested copy ofthis order be sent to the Trial Court through Special Messenger for seeing compliance. CM No.1942/2010 ffor stay)

8. With disposal of the petition itself, this application has become infmctuous and the same is accordingly disposed of \ StJRESH, J. FEBRUARY 01,2010 sb ARUNA h7/|. ^ MM^ -frr-r-* '0^. I/./,. ch fK «r*« ^