Dismissed

Abhishek Srivastava v. Shruti Srivastava

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an appeal against an interim maintenance order of Rs.25,000/month fixed by the Family Court. The Court found the amount reasonable given the wife's stipend and the marital obligations, rejecting the appellant's plea regarding legal strike. The appeal was dismissed for delay and on merits.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance order of Rs.25,000/month fixed by the Family Court was maintained; appeal dismissed.

Abhishek Srivastava Vs Shruti Srivastava — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 07.02.2024

¶4

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 46/2024 & CM APPLs.7431-33/2024

¶5

ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA ..... Appellant Through: Mr A K Bhambri, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SHRUTI SRIVASTAVA ..... Respondent

¶8

Through: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶11

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶12

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral):

¶13

CM Appl.7432/2024

¶14

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶15

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 46/2024 & CM APPLs.7431, 7433/2024

¶16

This appeal seeks to assail an ad-interim order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶17

2.1 Via the said order, the Family Court has directed the appellant/husband to pay an interim maintenance amounting to Rs.25,000/per month to the respondent/wife.

¶18

Mr A. K. Bhambri, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/husband, says that this court should intervene with the impugned order for the following reasons:

¶19

(i) The impugned order was passed while lawyers were on strike, albeit after hearing the parties in person.

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 46/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶22

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 14.0 2.2024 17:21:17

¶23

(ii) The respondent/wife is pursuing her Ph.D. and is earning a stipend of Rs.27,000/- per month.

¶24

(iii) The appellant/husband is burdened with liabilities due to loan taken by him, which he has to repay in instalments. This aspect should have been factored in by the Family Court before passing the order for interim maintenance.

¶25

We may note that the following facts are not disputed by Mr Bhambri: i) That the appellant/husband is working in the State Bank of Mauritius India Ltd and earns a gross salary of Rs.1,38,000/- per month. The appellant’s/husband’s take home salary is Rs.78,000/- per month.

¶26

ii) The couple has a minor daughter from the wedlock. iii) The father of the appellant/husband receives pension.

¶27

Therefore, having regard to the aforementioned undisputed facts, according to us, the ad-interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court is reasonable, especially so, as the respondent/wife is not working and only receives a stipend. Being a student, the respondent/wife would require funds to expend on books and other day-to-day expenses.

¶28

The appellant/husband, concededly, earns salary, as indicated above, amounting to Rs.1,38,000/- per month and a take home salary of Rs.78,000/per month.

¶29

Since the respondent/wife has to look after her needs as well as the needs of the minor child, an ad-interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month seems reasonable.

¶30

In any event, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the Family Court has directed the disputants to file their respective affidavits of income,

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 46/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶33

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 14.0 2.2024 17:21:17

¶34

along with the statement of bank accounts, for the preceding three (03) years.

¶35

8.1 If and when such affidavits are filed, the Family Court will surely take a final view in the matter.

¶36

The argument of Mr Bhambri that the court could not have passed the impugned order because the lawyers were on strike does not impress us since the parties appeared in person and did not object to the proceedings being taken up by the Family Court. None of the facts noticed above are disputed. Nothing has been shown to us, which would suggest that the nonappearance of the appellant’s/husband’s lawyer adversely impacted his interest.

¶37

9.1 Thus, the order cannot be disturbed on this score.

¶38

The delay in approaching the court is suggestive of the fact that the appellant/husband is taking a chance by approaching this Court in the hope that the impugned order would be interfered with. Notably, even according to the appellant/husband, the appeal is delayed by nearly 100 days.

¶39

The trial court has broadly looked at the income of the disputants and in our view, reached a reasonable conclusion with regard to the ad-interim maintenance.

¶40

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on merits.

¶41

Consequently, the application is closed.

¶42

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶43

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶44

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 /pmc

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 46/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶47

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 14.0 2.2024 17:21:17

Abhishek Srivastava v. Shruti Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Srivastava v. Shruti Srivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Vs Komal Talan

Renu Vs Rajesh Kumar

Mr. Ankit Chopra Vs Ms. Preeti Saini

Anuradha Kashyap Vs Sushil Kumar

Kritika Kaushik Vs Sankalp Sharma

Puneet Kumar Vs Anju Kumari & Anr.

Simran Punj Vs Bhupinder Sethi

Parvinder Kaur Vs Vipan Kumar

Abhishek Kumar Vs Komal Talan

Rajan Gupta Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Renu Vs Rajesh Kumar

Harpreet Kaur Vs Jasjeet Singh

Harpreet Kaur Vs Jasjeet Singh

Umesh Gupta Vs Yogesh Gupta