* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM (MAIN) No.537/2009

Date of Decision: May 24, 2010

GURBHEJ SINGH ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. O. P.Wadhwa, Advocate with
Petitioner in person.

VERSUS

PREETI KAUR …. Respondent

Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate with
Respondent in person.

% CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the

judgment?

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

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J.

CM (MAIN) No.537/2009 and CM APPL Nos.8108/2009 (stay) &

1987/2010 (u/s. 24 H.M. Act)

1. Under challenge in this petition is the order of the Additional District

Judge dated 23.03.2009, whereby on an application of Respondent

wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter

referred to as „Act‟), he assessed income of Petitioner husband at

Rs.50,000/- per month and awarded maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per

CM (Main) No. 537/2009 Page 1 of 5

 month to the Respondent and also directed the Petitioner to pay

Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the

Trial Court failed to appreciate that Petitioner belongs to a lower

middle class family and earns his livelihood as a fortune teller and by

selling glass bangles, Rashi Nag, etc. and lives in a joint family and

that he has been visiting abroad with his father and brother on a

tourist visa and not for any business purpose. He suffered serious

injuries and is not capable of earning anything because of his

inability to walk properly. He further submitted that Respondent is

running her own boutique at her residence and is earning about

Rs.15,000/- per month. He denied that Petitioner is engaged in the

whole sale business of selling precious stones, gems etc. His

submissions have been refuted by Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, counsel for

the Respondent.

3. Petitioner had placed on record his income tax return for the

assessment year of 2007-2008, before the Trial Court, according to

which his annual income is shown at Rs.1,12,600/- and it is under the

Head ‘Salaries from Rashmi Gems & Stone, Profits and Gains from

Business and profession, commission for sale of precious stone’.

4. His Bank statement of account, produced before the Trial Court,

CM (Main) No. 537/2009 Page 2 of 5

 indicate that in the beginning of January, 2008 he had a balance of

Rs.3,84,272/- in his account. He visited Singapore, Switzerland

from 15.6.2006 to 27.7.2006 and from 22.3.2006 to 21.6.2006;

Germany in 2006 and Netherlands on 15.1.2008 and 15.9.2008. The

Court took into consideration all these documents to come to the

conclusion that his income was around Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. Petitioner does not dispute that he had visited abroad. But he has

claimed that he went with his father and brother, at the expenses of

his father on a tourist visa. Copies of the visas placed on record

indicate that Petitioner visited above-said countries on a short visit

for tourism purposes and it was made clear that it was not valid for

employment. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is difficult to

find out if Petitioner had visited abroad for the purposes of his

business. As per the income tax return, he is taxed as a salaried

person and his income has been computed accordingly. He had

some commission from sale of precious stones and his gross total

income is shown to be at Rs.1,12,600/-. Even if it is assumed that

Petitioner is a salaried man and has some income from sale of

precious stones, etc. the basis of assessment of his income at

Rs.50,000/- per month by the Trial Court seems to be incorrect.

6. In ‘K.Lalchandani vs. Menu Lalchandani, 1997 (6) AD (Delhi) 44’,

CM (Main) No. 537/2009 Page 3 of 5

 it was observed in para 9 as under:-

“ 9. It cannot be said that the Court has only

to consider the bare minimum requirements of
the wife and the children but they have to put
almost at the same position as they would have
en-joyed had there been no separation between
the spouses. It need hardly be said that the wife
and the children have to be put on the same
position as the petitioner/husband/father and the
amount of maintenance to be awarded u/Secs.
24-26 of the Act has to be in tune with their
status and the mode of living to which they were
used to before separation between the spouses
and the wife and the children accorded the same
standard of living which they enjoyed till the
date of separation. It may also be seen that there
are as many as 15 litigations relating to the
properties between the petitioner and the
respondent. It cannot be again said that the
litigation in the present days is a costly
proposition. The amount with the
respondent/wife would obviously be spent in
these litigations and therefore, she cannot be
said to possess independent income sufficient
for the support and the necessary expenses of
these proceedings. A broad view of the facts
emerging from the record has to be taken for the
purpose of striking a just balance in awarding
the amount pendente lite u/Sec. 24 of the Act
having regard to the facts and circumstances,
emerging from the record.”

7. Considering the present financial as well as physical status of the

Petitioner, his income is reasonably assessed at Rs.20,000/- per

month.

CM (Main) No. 537/2009 Page 4 of 5

8. Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall pay maintenance @

Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the initial application

i.e. 23.10.2008 besides litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-. The

impugned order of the Trial Court dated 23.03.2009 stands modified

accordingly.

9. Arrears of maintenance shall be cleared by the Petitioner within two

months in two equal installments beginning from 1st June, 2010.

Petitioner is entitled to adjustment of any payment already made to

the Respondent towards maintenance.

10. Attested copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court forthwith.

ARUNA SURESH
(JUDGE)
MAY 24, 2010
vk

CM (Main) No. 537/2009 Page 5 of 5