IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CMfM) 67/2010 & CM No.l000/20I0 Date of Decision: 19"^ January, 2010 SHRIMANOJ KUMAR Petitioner Through: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate. versus SMT. DIMPLE & ANR. Respondents 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) 1. Impugning the order of the Trial Court dated 21 December, 2009 passed on an application of the respondents under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act') granting pendent lite maintenance to her and the minor daughter as Rs.5,000/- per month with further order of St CM(M) No.67/2010 Page I of 5 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 Rs.5,500/- to be paid as litigation expenses, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Trial Court went wrong when it failed to consider that salary of the petitioner is only Rs.3,500/- per month while awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. 3. Trial Court while deciding the said application took into consideration the Bank statement of account of the petitioner and the manner in which he had been changing his job and accepting new jobs at lower salaries before awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent and daughter of the parties. It has been observed by the Trial Court that:- "The respondent has nowhere explained any reason as to why he left the job with Cable Operator Major Suresh Yadav at Shalimar Bagh from where he got salary of Rs.6000/- p.m. and took up a job with Carvan Travles at Pitampura, Delhi at a lesser salary of Rs.5000/-p.m. Again it is not understandable and not explained by the petitioner as to why he has left the job with M/S.Carvan Travles and took up a private job with Sh.NP Goel at much lesser salary of Rs.3500/-p.m. The statement of accoimt of his bank accoimt filed by the petitioner shows that various cash deposits in this account in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.35,000/-, Rs,8000/-, . Rs.30,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.65,000, Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- so on and so forth. The petitioner CM(M) No. 67/2010 2 of 5 0 c has failed to account for such huge cash deposits in his bank account." 4. The court rightly observed that it went unexplained as to why petitioner had been leaving, one job after the other and accepting new jobs at much lesser salary. When petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.6000/- p.m. from Cable Operator Major Suresh Yadav at Shalimar Bagh, what made him leave his job. and join Carvan Travles at. Pitampura, Delhi for a lesser salary of Rs.5000/- p.m. goes imexplained. It is also not known as to why petitioner further decided to leave the job with M/S.Carvan Travles and took up a private job with Sh.NP Goel at a lesser salary of Rs.3500/-p.m only. No person would leave his job of better salary to accept another job at a much lesser salary, unless there are specific reasons for the same. Petitioner has not explained as to when and under what circumstance he had change his jobs not once, but thrice. 5. The court rightly took into consideration various cash deposits made in the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that his friend had taken some loan from the bank and in good faith, his friend has been depositing substantial amount of money in his account, which he in turn has paid to his friend's bank in his friend's name. This is an CM(M) No. 67/2010 3 of 5 unbelievable story which the petitioner has built up before this Court. His friend, who had taken loan from the bank, would be paying the loan amount directly to the bank and not through the petitioner. Admittedly, the statement of account placed on record by the petitioner before the Trial Court does not disclose that substantial amount which finds mentioned in the order of the Trial Court were actually deposited by petitioner's friend and also that petitioner had been depositing this amount in the bank account of his friend for repayment of loan, which he had allegedly taken. Petitioner admits that his Bank statement does not indicate any transfer of money in his friend's account. 6. Petitioner disputes that female child was bom out of the wedlock of the parties. When asked, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready and agreeable for DNA test to find out fatherhood of the child. He also submits that he would face the legal consequences; criminal as well as civil, in case DNA test is positive qua him. 7. Under these circumstances, conduct of the petitioner is crystal clear. To avoid payment of maintenance to his wife and child, petitioner has built up two stories, neither of which is believable or acceptable to the Court. Hence, I find no merits in this CM(M) No.67/2010 Page 4 of 5 petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Since petitioner himself has shown his willingness for DNA test to determine fatherhood of the child, the Trial Court shall pass necessary orders to the concerned authorities for conducting DNA test to determine fatherhood of the child. Expenses for DNA test shall be borne by the Petitioner /husband. In case, reports suggest that petitioner is the natural father of the child, the Court is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. ARUNA SURESH, J. JANUARY 19, 2010 sb CM(M) No. 67/2010 Page 5 of 5