Full Text
CM(M) 118/2010
Date of Decision: January 28, 2010 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.
Through: Nemo.
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.1716/2010 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. 2010:DHC:492 CM(M) 118/2010 and CM APPL.1715/2010 (stay)
1. Parties to the petition were married on 20.02.2008 at Delhi. They started living separately just after about four months of the marriage due to disputes and differences which arose amongst them. This resulted into filing of a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) & (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by the husband Raj Kumar seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree for divorce along with an application under Section 14 of the Act. Application of the Petitioner under Section 14 of the Act was allowed.
2. During the proceedings of the divorce petition, respondent wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking grant of maintenance pendent lite and litigation expenses from the Petitioner, husband.
3. Trial Court after taking into consideration the status of the Petitioner, and his capacity to earn as well as his Bank statement, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/per month as maintenance from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 19.5.2009 and another sum of Rs.8,000/towards litigation expenses. It was also observed by the Court that if any amount was being received by the Respondent wife as maintenance in any other proceedings, the same shall be adjustable against the amount awarded by the Court.
4. Dissatisfied by the order of the trial court dated 1.10.2009, present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
5. Bank Statement of the Petitioner indicated some substantial deposits made on different dates from March, 2008 till April,
2009. The trial court, therefore, considered and assessed the income of the Petitioner as not less than Rs.7,000/- to 10,000/per month. A person having monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, as claimed by the Petitioner, cannot have substantial amount at his disposal to be deposited in the account. Bank statement of account, therefore, indicated that besides the income as disclosed by the Petitioner, he has other source of income as well.
6. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference. Hence, I find no merits in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) JANUARY 28, 2010 vk