* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW IELHI + CM(M) 1481/2009 Date of Decision March 16, 2010 REETA MEHRA Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K.Shanna, Advocate. versus RAJESH MEHRA Respondent • Through: Mr. TRajesh Saxena, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported. in the Digest? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) - 1. Parties to the petition were married to each other on 20th April, 2005. A female child was born out of their wedlock on 30th April, 2006. Since parties could not continue to live together, they separated. However, 4matter was got compromised but again, CA'I(A No. 148112009 Page 1 of 4 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 when they could not live together they started living separately. This resulted into filing of a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HIM Act') by the respondent for dissolution of marriage by decree for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. In the said petition, petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of HIM Act. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 5th June 2009, whereby it was pleased to award maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner as well as her minor daughter cumulatively besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been filed. Mr.D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent is earning about Rs.20,000/- per month as he is engaged in private service, owns a residential house and is deriving Rs.50,000/- per month as rent. His total monthly income cbmes to Rs.70,000/- and therefore, Trial Court went wrong in awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife and the child. These submissions are refuted by Mr.Rajesh Saxena, counsel for the respondent. . . CM(M) No. 148112009 Page 2 of 4 While awarding maintenance, Trial Court assessed the income of the respondent and took into consideration income of the petitioner in para 7 of the impugned judgment. It reads as follows:- "7. in view of the above said facts and " circumstances of the case, it is felt appropriate to take the monthly income of the Petitioner/non-applicant at at-least Rs.4,5 00/- to Rs.5,000/- p.m., which are the minimum wages and thereby award an amount of Rs.2,000/-p.m. to the Respondent/applicant against the Petitioner/non-applicant in respect of maintenance pendentelite for herself as also in respect of the minor daughter of the parties aged about three years in her custody w.e.f. the date of moving of her application in this regard in the instant petition till the date of disposal of the instant petition with the proviso that any amount awarded, in favour of the Respondent/applicant against the Petitioner/non-applicant in this regard in similar proceedings shall, be adjustable as'. also an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent/applicant against the Petitioner/non-applicant, as litigation expenses in th instant petition. Ordered accordingly." It is a Common case of the parties that petitioner is . 'residing in the house provided to her by the respondent and respondent has not made any effrts to dispossess her from the said house in any maimer. Salary certificate placed on record indicates the monthly salary of respondent as Rs.5,000/-. Undisputedly, petitioner is employed for gain and she is also Carning almost CM(41)No.148112009 . . . . ' , .Page3of4 / Rs.5,000/- per month. Besides maintenance awarded by the Trial Court at Rs.2,000I- per month, she is living in her matrimonial home provided to her by the respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances of this cae, Trial. Court rightly awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner as well as her daughter. I find no reason to interfere in the same. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent is ready and willing to live with his wife/ the petitioner and his child and is a also agreeable to take them to his house unconditionally. It is the petitioner, who, though has shOwn her willingness to join her husband but, insisted that her husband should come to the place where she is residing and live with her. Her condition, being unfair, was not accepted by the respondent. Hence, I find no merits, in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 0 ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 16, 2010 sb ' CM(M) No. 148112009 Page4of4