Bimla Devi v. Sureshkumar Aggrawal

(1) Whether reporters oflocalpaper 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. (OraO

1 Vide order dated 13^' January, 2009, impugned in this petition. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss cross-applications ofthe parties filedunder Section24 oftheHinduMarriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seekingmaintenance against each other. CM(M)No. 72/2010 1of[5] 2010:DHC:7185 th

2. Petitioner herein was married to the respondent on 12 May, 1980. From the wedlock of the parties, three children were bom, namely, two sons and one daughter. Since October 2005, respondent is alleged to have not paid any maintenance. It is averred in the application by the petitioner that she is maintaining herselfand children are also maintaining themselves by parting tuitions and stitching clothes.

3. Respondent is stated to be a Commission Agent dealing in grains in Naya Bazar, Delhi and is alleged to be earning Rs.10,000/- per day. He,therefore, earns about Rs.1.[5] lacs to 2 lacs per month. Respondent, in his petition, claimed maintenance from his wife, the petitioner on the grounds that he had purchased properties in her name and she has rental income of about Rs.20,000/- per month from the said house. She also took away Rs.l[3] lacs from the buyer ofplot No.75,which was sold for a sum of Rs.l[5] lacs and Rs.[2] lacs were taken as earnest money. He has also alleged that he is hardly able to earn Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month which is not sufficient for his own livelihood.

4. The Trial Court dismissed both the applications. It is not disputed by the petitioner that plot No.75 and property No.30 were purchased by her after selling all her gold and silver ornaments CM(M)No. 72'2010 2of[5] c in her name. However,she has claimed that she had brought these properties, other savings and another plot of 100 square yards. This indicates that petitioner had some savings. Savings could be only from someincome which,she was having from some source,may be rental incomefrom the said two properties which are owned by her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Court could not have decided the right and title ofthe petitioner in the said suit properties withoutadjudicating upon the sarhe.

6. These submissions are devoid ofany merits in view of admission ofthe petitioner herselfmade in her application as well as in her reply to the application ofrespondentfiled under Section 24of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that she is having only one property where she is living as the other plot of 100 square yards was sold for purchase ofthe said house at Kewal Nagar, Delhi. This plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that petitioner herself admitted that she purchased two properties bearing plot No. 75 out of her own funds and property bearing No.30, Kewal Nagar by selling all her gold and silver omaments and another plot of100square yards bearing No.16 outof Khasra No.12/23 situated in Village Libaspur. Plot of 100 square CM(M)No.72/2010 ^ yards was independent of the other properties which stood in the name ofthe petitioner.

8. Trial Court has observed that Petitioner,though denied that she was receiving monthly rent ofRs.20,000/-, but did not plead that no portion of the said property had been let out. The Court, therefore, in my view rightly drew an adverse inference against the petitioner and held thatshe was having rental income.

9. Petitioner has alleged that her monthly expenses are about Rs.60,000/-. She is living in her own house and therefore,she has a roofon her head as well as her children. Asregards day-to-day subsistence, from the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the court rightly gathered that she was having rental income of about Rs.20,000/- per month.

10. As pointed out above, it is the case of the petitioner herself that she and her children are maintaining themselves by parting tuitions and doing stitching work. Besides rental-income, petitioner, therefore, has other sources of income, which are sufficient to meet her day-to-day expenses and that ofher children. Respondent has not challenged the impugned order of the Trial Court. CM(M)No.72/2010 4of[5] i

11. Under these circumstances, I find no merits in this petition. Hence,the same is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos.1050-51/2010

12. Since the petition itselfhas been dismissed, both these applications have become infructuous. The same are accordingly disposed of.