CM(M) No.608/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) 608/2010 Date of Decision: May 06, 2010 SONIKA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K.Goel, Advocate. versus LOKESH KAUSHIK ..... Respondent Through: None. % 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 J U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) CM (M) 608/2010 and CM APPL No.8410/2010 (exemption) 1. In a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as „Act‟) for annulment of marriage filed by the Respondent husband, Petitioner moved an application under Section 24 and 26 of the Act. Considering the income of the Respondent, Trial Court vide its order dated 24.08.2006 was pleased to award maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- CM(M) No.608/2010 Page 2 of 5 per month to the Petitioner wife and Rs.1500/- per month to the minor child. 2. There was hike in the salary of the Respondent in view of 6th Pay Commission. This resulted into another application by the petitioner seeking enhancement of maintenance for herself and for the child. In the meantime, child was got admitted in a school for which tuition fee is about Rs.1500/- per month and the same is being paid by the Petitioner. This application was dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 05.02.2010 with the following observations:- “5. Applicant/wife has sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for minor child. However, no other document has been placed on record by applicant to show the increase in expenses except two fee receipts of minor child. According to fee receipt, the tuition fee of the child is about Rs.1500/- per month. On the other hand petitioner has placed on record his salary slip according to which his net monthly salary is Rs.11,686/- per month and from this amount petitioner is already paying Rs.3500/- to the respondent and minor child. 6. After taking into account the fact that petition is already paying payment of maintenance and that no document has been placed on record by the applicant for enhancement of expenses except fee of the CM(M) No.608/2010 Page 3 of 5 minor child; thirdly the fact that petitioner is pursuing further education in order to better prospects in life, I consider it appropriate to partly allow the application of the applicant/wife. Application of the respondent/wife is partly allowed to the effect that petitioner is directed to enhance maintenance of minor child from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/- for the fact that education expenses of the child has increased, from the date of the application till the disposal of the petition…..” 3. Mr. V.K.Goel, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner and her minor child are dependent upon her parents and since after the death of her father, there is no income in the hands of her family members to meet her expenses as well. It is argued that Respondent did not disclose his true income as besides his salary he earns about Rs.10,000/- by running a commercial institute under the name and style of Britannica through someone else. Besides, he has a rental income and is earning about Rs.40,000/- per month. He urged that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the income of the Respondent while deciding the application. 4. Admittedly, Respondent is employed as a Constable with Delhi Police. His pay slip for the month of June, 2009 indicates that he is getting net income of Rs.11,686/-. Basic CM(M) No.608/2010 Page 4 of 5 salary of the Respondent is Rs.7320/-, his Grade Pay is Rs.2,000/-, DA Rs.2050/- and HRA Rs.2796/-. Besides, he is getting certain other allowances which are towards his conveyance allowance, ration money, Metropolitan City allowance, etc. These allowances are actually spent by the Respondent in due performance of his duties. Therefore, allowances which are paid for actual consumption cannot be treated as income. Besides, the deductions also indicate that they are all compulsory in nature. A sum of Rs.2,000/- is being deducted from the salary of the Respondent by virtue of Court attachment. Thus, after entire deduction, Respondent is left with net salary of Rs.11,686/-. 5. A person who is employed in Govt. service cannot carry on any other activities for gain. Petitioner has not disclosed the name of the person through whom Respondent is allegedly running alleged commercial institute under the name and style of Britannica. It may be that Respondent has no concern with the same. Similarly, it is not disclosed as to from where Respondent is having rental income. Respondent in his reply has denied that he has any rental income. CM(M) No.608/2010 Page 5 of 5 6. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record and income of the Respondent, the Trial Court rightly enhanced maintenance of the child from Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/- and refused to enhance maintenance for the Petitioner. Now, maintenance payable to the Petitioner for herself and her child comes to Rs.4,500/- per month. 7. Considering the income of the Respondent, the Trial Court has balanced the equity while awarding the maintenance. 8. Hence, I find no merits in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAY 06, 2010 vk