CM(M) No.742/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 742/2010 Date of Decision: May 28, 2010 MAYANK SETHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Seth, Adv. versus GUNEET ..... 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) 742/2010 and CM APPL.10262/2010 1. Petitioner has impugned the order of the learned ADJ dated 28.04.2010, whereby on an application of the Respondent wife, the Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2250/- per month to her and Rs.1800/- per month to the minor child, aged about two years, considering the income of the Petitioner between Rs.9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. CM(M) No.742/2010 Page 2 of 4 2. Mr. Gaurav Seth, counsel for the Petitioner has argued that Petitioner is working as Sales Executive and is getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and that the Respondent was awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the said order was never challenged by the Respondent. 3. It is also argued that Court did not ask the Petitioner to file any affidavit stating if he owned other immoveable assets, had it been so, he would have filed an affidavit accordingly. 4. I find no force in the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner. As per the case of the Petitioner himself, he is Sales Executive in Aakash Enterprises. A general certificate was issued by the employer indicating that Petitioner is working in the said company since 2nd April, 2008 and is drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, Petitioner did not place on record any salary certificate to indicate the actual amount he is receiving from his employer i.e. Aakash Enterprises. Besides salary, being a Sales Executive, he must be getting some sales commissions and other perks like conveyance allowance, mobile/telephone expenses, etc. CM(M) No.742/2010 Page 3 of 4 Petitioner is absolutely silent about his commission on sales and also other perks which he must be receiving from his employer. 5. Trial Court also rightly noted that a person earning about Rs.5,000/- cannot pay rent of Rs.1900/- per month and also incur expenses of Rs.400/- per month on mobile. Petitioner could do so only if he had substantial income from other sources, may be like sales commissions etc. 6. It is noted that Petitioner was asked by the Trial Court to file his bank statement for two years and also to state if he owned any other moveable or immoveable property. Petitioner neither produced the Bank statement nor filed any affidavit indicating his moveable and immoveable assets. Naturally, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Petitioner observing that he was not disclosing his correct income. 7. It is of significance that the certificate placed on record does not clearly indicate the status or the designation of the Petitioner in the company. It is during the course of arguments when asked, Petitioner stated that he is working as Sales Executive. CM(M) No.742/2010 Page 4 of 4 8. Hence, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Trial Court. 9. Petition is accordingly dismissed. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAY 28, 2010 vk