* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CMriVD 163/2010 Date of Decision; February 04,2010 RAVI DUBEY Petitioner Through: Mr.Vikas Mahajan, Advocate. versus PUJA DUBEY 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 ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH. J. (Oral) CM No.2178/2008 (delay in refilingl in CMfMl 163/2010 1. There is six days delay in refiling the petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Delay in refiling the petition is hereby condoned. CM No.2178/2008 rfor exemptionl in CMriVH 163/2010 3. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. Application stands disposed of. CM(M) No. 132/2010 Page 1 of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ->0 CMfM^ 163/2010 5 Parties to the petition were married according to Hindu Rites on 7'*' December, 2004. Out of the wedlock of the parties, a female child namely Bhavyata was born on 16"' March, 2007 and is now in the custody of the respondent. Marriage could not survive and the parties started living separately. 6. Petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce against the respondent. In the said petition for divorce, respondent filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking pendent lite maintenance from the petitioner till the pendency of the divorce petition. 7. Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 4^ November, 2009 was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and the minor child from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition. 8. Being dissatisfied by the said order, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that he is earning about Rs.1.20 lacs per month. In the petition, respondent had claimed maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month for herself and the minor CM(M) No. 132/2010 Page 2 of 4 daughter. 9 Grievance of the petitioner is that the court did not consider the expenses of the petitioner incurred by him, while awarding maintenance, which according to him is on the higher side. I find no basis for the alleged grievance. Only deduction, to which petitioner is entitled to, are his contribution towards the GPF/PPF within the permissible limit, premium towards LIC policy and the income tax payable by him. A person who is earning a sum of Rs. 1.20 lacs per month is financially sound and can provide maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month to his wife and child. It is pertinent that respondent, being wife of the petitioner and Bhavyata, being his daughter, are entitled to enjoy the standard of living in which the petitioner is living with such a handsome income/salary. 10. This is not even half of the salary of the petitioner, which, under the normal circumstances, could have been awarded by the court as maintenance to the wife and the child. Under these circumstances, to my mind, maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable and need no interference. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed. CM(M) No. 132/2010 Page 3 of4 S) CM No.2176/2010 (for stay) 11. Since petition has been dismissed, this application has become infmctuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. ARUNASURESH,J. FEBRUARY 04, 2010 sb CM(M) No. 132/2010 Page 4 of4