CM(M) No.278/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 278/2010 & CM Nos.3805 /2010 & …./2010 Date of Decision: March 02, 2010 SMT. SUMAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.D.R. Bhatia and Mr.K.C. Bajaj, Advocates. versus SHRI ANIL KUMAR ..... 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? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? J U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral) 1. Impugned in this petition is the order of the Trial Court dated 30th January 2010, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HM Act’) seeking maintenance for herself and for the child, Tushar Bhatt CM(M) No.278/2010 Page 2 of 4 was partly allowed. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she was employed for gain and keeping in mind the income of the spouses, awarded maintenance for the child aged about 7 years at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had settled his fees at Rs.33,000/- to be paid by the petitioner, whereas Trial Court has awarded only Rs.3,300/- towards litigation expenses. He has urged that under these circumstances, respondent is liable to contribute more towards litigation expenses; otherwise petitioner is not financially stable to pay him the fees, as agreed. 3. While awarding cost of litigation, terms and conditions settled inter se the party and her counsel have no bearing on the mind of the court as court has to assess the circumstances of each case and financial capability of the parties to decide the quantum of litigation expenses, which it may award to the spouse seeking maintenance under Section 24 of HM Act along with litigation expenses. I find no reason to interfere in the litigation expenses awarded by the Trial Court, simply because the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.33,000/- to her advocate. 4. Needless to say that petitioner being woman, if not employed, is entitled to free legal aid services from Delhi Legal CM(M) No.278/2010 Page 3 of 4 Services Authority. Therefore, if petitioner has chosen in her wisdom to engage the services of an expensive lawyer, it is for her to see how to meet litigation expenses and pay fees of her advocate. 5. Admittedly, petitioner is employed for gain and as per her own case, she is earning about Rs.3,400/- per month. Her son is residing at Rampur District, Pauri Garwal, whereas she herself is employed for gain in Delhi. Respondent claimed that he was earning about Rs.4,000/- per month. Besides salary slips, Trial Court had no other documentary evidence to indicate that respondent was having any additional income from other sources. Keeping in mind income of the respondent and balancing the income of the parties, Trial Court, to my mind, rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Since child is to be brought up according to the status of his parents, the Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month for the child. According to the petitioner herself, she is sending Rs.3,000/- per month to Rampur for upbringing of her son. Therefore, Trial Court in its wisdom rightly granted Rs.1,200/- per month as maintenance for the child. 6. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. CM(M) No.278/2010 Page 4 of 4 CM Nos.3805 /2010 (for stay) & ….../2010 (for exemption) 7. Registry is directed to assign number to the application seeking exemption. Since petitioner has been dismissed, both applications have become infructuous and the same are dismissed accordingly. ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 02, 2010 sb