Dismissed

Pawan Kumar v. Rakhi Maheshwari

Delhi HC22 Mar 2010CM(M)/384/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent wife and minor child under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held that the petitioner failed to disclose actual income despite evidence of a lifestyle inconsistent with his claimed salary, thus dismissing the plea to set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it had no merit; interim maintenance order stands.

Pawan Kumar Vs Rakhi Maheshwari — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2010)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

CM(M) 384/2010

¶3

Date of Decision: March 22, 2010

¶4

PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K. Santosh, Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAKHI MAHESHWARI ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶7

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

¶10

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be

¶11

allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

¶13

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported

¶14

in the Digest ?

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

¶17

CM APPL.5340/2010 (exemption)

¶18

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions

¶19

Application stands disposed of.

¶20

CM APPL.........../2010 (delay) (to be numbered)

¶21

This application needs no consideration as the petition has

¶22

been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is rejected.

¶23

CM(M) No.384/2010

¶24

Page 1 of 4

¶25

CM(M) 384/2010 and CM APPL.5339/2010 (stay)

¶26

Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated 24.10.2009 whereby it granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- to the wife and the minor child respectively i.e. total sum of Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as H.M. Act), besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Trial Court while awarding interim maintenance did not properly consider the salary of the Petitioner which is only Rs.4,773/per month. Maintenance awarded is more than his salary whereas Respondent wife is employed as a teacher in a private school and is drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the child.

¶28

Respondent claimed herself to be unemployed when she filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child, who is in her custody. She alleged that Petitioner is drawing a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as he is working as Accountant in

¶29

CM(M) No.384/2010

¶30

Gayatri Steel Fabricators, Mayur Vihar.

¶31

Petitioner has placed on record photocopy of his salary certificate to show that he is drawing a salary of Rs.4,700/per month. However, he admitted that he owns a motorcycle and mobile phone. When asked, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the motorcycle has been purchased by the Petitioner after getting it financed. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that motorcycle owned by the Petitioner is financed. Besides, a person drawing a salary of Rs.4,773/- per month cannot pay installments of the amount taken on loan by him for purchasing the vehicle. He is also maintaining mobile for which he must be paying regular bills. His mobile expenses are not substantiated by way of any document like bills raised on him by the concerned Cellular Company. No document is placed on record to indicate that Respondent is employed as a teacher and is earning amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶32

Under these circumstances, Trial Court rightly held that Petitioner had not disclosed his actual income. From the status of living of the Petitioner, it is obvious that, besides his

¶33

CM(M) No.384/2010

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

salary as projected to the court, he must be having additional income from other sources. A person earning Rs.4,700/- per month cannot afford to have a status of living which the Petitioner is maintaining.

¶36

To my mind, approach of the Trial Court was right in assessing the income of the Petitioner while granting maintenance to the Respondent and the minor child. In no manner, the quantum of interim maintenance awarded can be considered as on the higher side.

¶37

Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

ARUNA SURESH, J.

¶39

MARCH 22, 2010 vk

¶40

CM(M) No.384/2010

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Pawan Kumar v. Rakhi Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Rakhi Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjinder Singh Bedi Vs Rp Malhotra

Ritu Chadha Vs Ankur Chadha

Shiv Kumar Vs Dr.Darshan Kumar

Amit Goel & Anr. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Daya Nand

Raju and Others Vs Gainda Devi

Suresh C. Jain & Anr. Vs Manoj Jain & Ors.

Yashwinder Khurana Vs Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Braham Dutt Sharma & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr.

Brij Mohan Raheja Vs Vinod Kumar Verma

Bhim Singh Vs Summon Singh

Naseem Akhtar Vs Madan Singh & Anr.

Rk Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Umesh Ahuja Vs Charanjit Lamba