CM(M) No. 173/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 173/2010 Date of Decision: 5th February, 2010 VIJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Niraj Chaudhary, Adv. with Petitioner in person. versus USHA ..... 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? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? J U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce against his wife, the respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HM Act’). In the said petition, respondent filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act seeking interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. CM(M) No. 173/2010 Page 2 of 3 2. Trial court vide impugned order dated 19.11.2009 was pleased to award maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Respondent wife from the date of the filing of the application and another sum of Rs.3,500/- as litigation expenses. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, present petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 4. Petitioner in his statement recorded on oath as PW-1 by the court has stated that he is earning a sum of Rs.3,246/-. In his cross examination, he admitted that there are two shops in the property in which he is residing and both the shops have been rented out to two tenants. He also admitted that they were getting Rs.1500/- each from the tenants as rent. 5. The trial court on the basis of this admission of the Petitioner assessed the income of the Petitioner to Rs.6,300/- per month and accordingly awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month. True that, the trial court while assessing the rental income of the Petitioner as Rs.3,000/- did not take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner’s individual rental income was Rs.1500/- only. Therefore, the trial court did CM(M) No. 173/2010 Page 3 of 3 commit a mistake in coming to the conclusion that the total monthly income of the Petitioner, as per his own saying was Rs.6,300/-. 6. When rental income of the Petitioner is added to his salary of Rs.3,300/-, his total income comes to Rs.4,800/- per month. Assessing monthly income of the Petitioner to be Rs.4,800/- per month, the amount of maintenance as awarded by the trial court @ Rs.2,000/- per month is a reasonable amount. 7. I find no reason to interfere in the order of the trial court, except the necessary correction which was required to be made. Hence, petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. 8. CM APPL Nos.2255-56/2010 also stand dismissed. ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 05, 2010 vk