CM(M)NO. 38/2005 Page 1 of 5 45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Delivered on: 13.09.2010 + CM(M) 38/2005 GURSHARAN SINGH BAWA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Sandeep Sharma and Mr.Aatish Grover, Advs. versus ARVINDER KAUR ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Pradeep Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2004 passed on an application filed by wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for maintenance and pendente lite and the litigation expenses. It is stated by Mr.Sandeep Sharma, counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has no source of income, as he is jobless and thus the maintenance fixed at `3,000/- for the wife and `2,000/- for the minor daughter, is far in excess. It is further submitted that respondent is working and she does not require any support from the petitioner. It is also submitted that trial court has failed to consider the documents placed on record by the petitioner herein, which would show that CM(M)NO. 38/2005 Page 2 of 5 petitioner is the only earning member of family and is getting `3,000/- per month. 2. It is further submitted that respondent, who was divorcee at the time of marriage, has played a fraud upon the petitioner, as she did not disclose this fact to the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is against the law and facts and is based on conjectures and surmises. It is also submitted that learned trial court has given findings beyond the pleadings and only with a view to pressurize the petitioner. 3. The present petition is opposed by counsel for the respondent on the ground that respondent is a man of means. He is well- educated and is staying in a 200 sq. yds. house in Noida along with his family. It is further submitted that after the marriage between the parties, respondent was residing with the petitioner at the same house, besides respondent has to maintain her minor school daughter and she has to pay her school fee, transportation expenses, school uniform, books and other day-to-day expenses. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties, the parties and the minor daughter in the Chamber as well. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has no source of livelihood and thus he is unable to pay any maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter. It has also been argued that the respondent has played a fraud upon the petitioner as it was not disclosed that the respondent was married and divorced. It has also been argued that the sole aim CM(M)NO. 38/2005 Page 3 of 5 of the respondent is to harass the petitioner and extract money from him. In this case marriage between the parties were solemnized on 18.5.1999 and a daughter was born on 30.7.2000. As per the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the petitioner is a contractor and is earning `30000/-, per month, besides, rental income. The respondent has denied the same. The trial court has observed that the husband has neither disclosed the detail of his earnings or the nature of his employment or the name of his employer. The trial court has also observed in the order that during the hearing the respondent had stated that he was earlier a Government contractor but at present he is working as a Supervisor and is only earning `3000/-, per month. The position is no different before this court. I have met the parties in the chamber. The respondent is an able bodied man and well conversant with the English language. It is not possible that the respondent has no source of livelihood as the respondent has failed to disclose how he is managing himself. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent has played a fraud upon the petitioner. I find no force in the submission, as the submission made is not relevant, while deciding the application under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. In the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun & Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7, it has been held as under: CM(M)NO. 38/2005 Page 4 of 5 “8. The wife has no fixed abode of residence. She says she is living in a Gurudwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand the husband has sufficient income and a house to himself. The Wife has not claimed any litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by the courts. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. Some scope for liverage can, however, be always there. Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month payable by respondent-husband to the appellant-wife.” 6. The petitioner has failed to satisfy this court as to how he is maintaining himself. It is neither expected nor possible that the petitioner is jobless. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been able to get a job. Petitioner cannot be permitted to shirk from his responsibilities of maintaining his wife and minor daughter. 7. Having regard to the family background of the parties and also taking into consideration that at the time when the petitioner was married to the respondent, both resided at the matrimonial home i.e. a 200 sq. yds house at Noida, the respondent wife is looking after the minor school going daughter, maintenance @ `3000/-, per month for the wife and `2000/-, per month for the CM(M)NO. 38/2005 Page 5 of 5 minor daughter, cannot be said to be exorbitant or punitive. Thus there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. G.S. SISTANI, J. September 13, 2010 'ssn’