In this revision petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to an interim maintenance order of Rs.33,005/- per month awarded to the wife and minor child. The Court held that without documentary proof, the claim that the wife is earning remains a disputed question suitable for trial.
Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Reserved on : 02.12.2019 Decision on : 06.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
SH. ARUN VATS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Vats, Advocate. versus
MS. PALLAVI SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate along with R-1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
of income and claimed Rs.80,000/- per month as maintenance.
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Page 1 of 4
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Page 2 of 4
Rs.33,005/- per month for herself and the minor child.
of the respondent/wife which is stated to have been downloaded from a social website. He has submitted that the respondent/wife is professionally qualified and is earning well. He also submitted that the petitioner was paying rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month vide order dated 16.07.16.
was held that ‘capable of earning’ and ‘actual earning’ are two different requirements. Merely because wife is capable of earning was held not to be a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Page 3 of 4
trial. The Family Court has recorded in the impugned order that any amount paid as maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife and her minor child for the period in question would be liable to be adjusted.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
DECEMBER 06, 2019 ga
CRL.REV.P. 751/2018
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance of Rs.33,005/- per month was illegal or perverse given the respondent's professional qualifications.
Whether the petitioner's claim that the respondent is earning was sufficient to challenge the maintenance award without documentary evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalija & Anr. Vs. KhobbanaReferred¶24
(2018) 12 SCC 199 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sh. Arun Vats
Ms. Pallavi Sharma
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
