CM (M) No. 691/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) 691/2010 Date of Decision: 19th May, 2010 KUNAL BOSE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pritpal Singh, Adv. with Mr. K.K. Sharma, Adv. versus SMT. ANITA BOSE ..... 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) 691/2010 and CM APPL.9374/2010 (stay) 1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) for declaring by a decree of nullity of the marriage between him and the Respondent alleging that before marrying the Petitioner, Respondent was already married to one Mr. Bhim Singh Negi CM (M) No. 691/2010 Page 2 of 4 and was having three children from him. She concealed this fact at the time of solemnizing her marriage with him. In the said petition, Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming pendent lite maintenance from the Petitioner. 2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2010 was pleased to award maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent from the date of filing of the application i.e. 15.4.2008 and also directed the Petitioner to pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner has filed this petition. 4. It is argued by Mr. Pritpal Singh counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner is unemployed for the last about five years and has no source of income. He is a patient of epilepsy and has no money to purchase medicine for his treatment. Since Respondent was already married at the time when she married the Petitioner, she is not entitled to any maintenance as claimed by her. Her spouse from her earlier marriage is alive and she is living with him and this fact was not disclosed to CM (M) No. 691/2010 Page 3 of 4 the Petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance as claimed by her. 5. Petitioner admits having married the Respondent on 19.6.2002. As per the case of the Petitioner, Respondent is older than him in age. He admits that marriage was consummated. It is also admitted that a case under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC has been registered by the Respondent against him in which charges under Section 406 IPC have been framed and he is facing trial. 6. Trial Court observed that Petitioner was employed with HCL as an HR Manager on a monthly salary of Rs.10,500/-. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has resigned from the services and presently he is unemployed. No document was placed by the Petitioner in the Trial Court or even in this Court to substantiate his argument that he had left the services of HCL in 2007 and was unemployed. Similarly, no document has been placed on record to indicate that he is suffering from epilepsy and the medical expenses which he has to bear for his treatment every month. Petitioner CM (M) No. 691/2010 Page 4 of 4 has neither disclosed in reply to the petition nor has been able to tell the court, the name of the doctor or the hospital from whom and from where he is getting himself treated. 7. Under these circumstances, in my view the Trial Court rightly assessed the income of the Petitioner to be around Rs.10,000/- per month akin to his last salary drawn from his employer HCL. According to the Respondent, Petitioner owns immoveable property and has rental income which fact is disputed by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the Trial Court rightly assessed the monthly income of the Petitioner while awarding maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the Respondent besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. 8. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order to exercise my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. Hence, petition is hereby dismissed. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAY 19, 2010 vk