CM(M) No.572/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 572/2010 Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 AMIT TYAGI …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate. versus DEEPA TYAGI ….. Respondent Through: Nemo. % 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) 572/2010 and CM APPL Nos.7808-09/2010 1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘H.M. Act’) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. During the pendency of the said petition, Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of H.M. Act and sought interim maintenance for herself and her daughter CM(M) No.572/2010 Page 2 of 4 Niharika, aged about 4 years. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.02.2010, awarded maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the Respondent wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to the minor daughter w.e.f. 02.07.2009, the date of filing of the application. Trial Court also awarded litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, this petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner husband is an Engineer, might be a Diploma Holder. He was employed in IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited. Though, he claimed that his services were terminated on 14.08.2007 and since thereafter he is unemployed, the Trial Court, considering his qualifications as well as his previous employment as an Engineer, disbelieved that he was unemployed. The Court also observed that an electrical business is being run in the name and style of M/s. Parul Electricals. In his wedding card, name of M/s. Parul Electricals and M/s. Satyam Electricals have been mentioned as R.S.V.P. Petitioner alleged that he has nothing to do with any of the said firms, which are owned by his father. In the absence of any documents, the Trial Court rightly observed CM(M) No.572/2010 Page 3 of 4 that Petitioner was concealing his true income and therefore was not believable. A person qualified as an Engineer cannot in any manner be considered dependent on his parents. If he is not employed with any other firm he must be working in the firm owned by his father. 3. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court was right when it awarded maintenance to the wife and the child. Petitioner did raise a defence that Respondent being well educated was employed and was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month. However, he could not substantiate his averments and therefore, the Trial court did not believe that Respondent was employed for gain, especially when Respondent had denied that she was employed for gain. 4. It is not in dispute that Petitioner is a skilled labour. Being an Engineer, he might not be governed by the Minimum Wages Act, as is applicable to a workman. However, to assess his minimum income, Court can consider the Minimum Wages payable to a skilled Labour under the said Act. It seems that Petitioner avoided correct disclosure of his income with a CM(M) No.572/2010 Page 4 of 4 view to avoid his liability to pay maintenance to his wife and child. 5. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Trial court, which needs any interference. Maintenance awarded by the Court is just and fair, based on equitable assessment of the income of the Petitioner. 6. Hence, I find no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE APRIL 28, 2010 vk