CM(M) No.615/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) 615/2010 Date of Decision: May 07, 2010 YASH PAL KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Arora, Adv. with Shakti Meena, Adv. versus RUBY KHANNA ..... 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) 615/2010 and CM APPL Nos.8507-08/2010 1. Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) seeking divorce against his wife, the Respondent. In the said petition, Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance. CM(M) No.615/2010 Page 2 of 5 2. The Trial Court took into consideration the fact that Petitioner is running jewellery shop at A-3/35, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and also that Petitioner has exclusive right over the said property and shop. Considering the nature of business of the Petitioner and that he owns an immoveable property where he is running his business, the Trial Court awarded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The Court also awarded Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. It was made clear that any amount payable in any other proceedings to the Respondent by the Petitioner, would be adjustable against the amount awarded vide the impugned order. 3. Mr. Tarun Arora, counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Court while awarding maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife did not give any conclusion regarding the income of the Petitioner. The Court failed to consider that shop is in the name of the mother of the Petitioner and Petitioner is only working there. It is a family shop where all the brothers are working and Petitioner is not the absolute owner. Court also failed to consider that Petitioner is paying maintenance of Rs.3,500/- under Protection of Women from Domestic CM(M) No.615/2010 Page 3 of 5 Violence Act. Respondent has already been provided residential accommodation and electricity and water bills are being paid by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider that Respondent has rented out the premises and is enjoying the rental income. 4. I do not find any force in the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner. It is submitted that son of the parties is mentally retarded. He is aged about 19 years. Till date no maintenance is being paid for the child. Besides, Petitioner has a daughter, Goldy who is about 21 years of age. Respondent along with her children is residing in the premises, which according to the Petitioner, have been provided by him and he is paying water and electricity charges. He is running a goldsmith shop and therefore is a man of means. 5. Since actual income of the Petitioner was not disclosed by him by submitting any documents, the Court in the absence of any proper assistance, considering the income of a goldsmith rightly awarded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. CM(M) No.615/2010 Page 4 of 5 While doing so, the Court also took into consideration the fact that son of the Petitioner is mentally retarded and needs medical attendance and other expenses, which would be borne by the Petitioner. 6. As regards joint business, Respondent has placed on record a copy of the complaint dated 4.11.2006 filed by the Petitioner against his brother, Satpal Khanna claiming property A-3/35, Moti Nagar, New Delhi to be solely his property as his brother had already taken share from the said business and that Petitioner has exclusive right over the property and the shop which is being run by him. Observations of the Trial Court regarding the complaint made by the Petitioner against his brother belies the submission of the Petitioner that it is a joint business and that shop is a family shop and is being run in the name of his mother. 7. True, that the Trial Court did not specifically assess the income of the Petitioner but the manner in which the order has been passed, clearly indicate that the Court was at a loss to determine the income of the Petitioner; a goldsmith, it fixed CM(M) No.615/2010 Page 5 of 5 the maintenance keeping in mind the income of a goldsmith in general. 8. While awarding maintenance, the Court has to see that wife can live in a reasonable comfort considering her status, mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. 9. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent besides other expenses. The Court also ensured that the payment which the Respondent was receiving under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was adjusted towards maintenance payable vide impugned order. 10. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAY 07, 2010 vk