.■t' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(]VH72/2010 & CM Nos.1050-51/2010 Date of Decision: 20^*^ January, 2010 BIMLA DEVI Petitioner Through: Mr.C.S.Parashar, Advocate. versus SURESH KUMAR AGGRAWAL 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 ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH. J. (OraO 1 Vide order dated 13^' January, 2009, impugned in this petition. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss cross-applications of the parties filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking maintenance against each other. CM(M) No. 72/2010 1 of5 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 th 2. Petitioner herein was married to the respondent on 12 May, 1980. From the wedlock of the parties, three children were bom, namely, two sons and one daughter. Since October 2005, respondent is alleged to have not paid any maintenance. It is averred in the application by the petitioner that she is maintaining herself and children are also maintaining themselves by parting tuitions and stitching clothes. 3. Respondent is stated to be a Commission Agent dealing in grains in Naya Bazar, Delhi and is alleged to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per day. He, therefore, earns about Rs.1.5 lacs to 2 lacs per month. Respondent, in his petition, claimed maintenance from his wife, the petitioner on the grounds that he had purchased properties in her name and she has rental income of about Rs.20,000/- per month from the said house. She also took away Rs.l3 lacs from the buyer of plot No.75, which was sold for a sum of Rs.l5 lacs and Rs.2 lacs were taken as earnest money. He has also alleged that he is hardly able to earn Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month which is not sufficient for his own livelihood. 4. The Trial Court dismissed both the applications. It is not disputed by the petitioner that plot No.75 and property No.30 were purchased by her after selling all her gold and silver ornaments CM(M) No. 72 '2010 2 of5 0 c in her name. However, she has claimed that she had brought these properties, other savings and another plot of 100 square yards. This indicates that petitioner had some savings. Savings could be only from some income which, she was having from some source, may be rental income from the said two properties which are owned by her. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Court could not have decided the right and title of the petitioner in the said suit properties without adjudicating upon the sarhe. 6. These submissions are devoid of any merits in view of admission of the petitioner herself made in her application as well as in her reply to the application of respondent filed under Section 24 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that she is having only one property where she is living as the other plot of 100 square yards was sold for purchase of the said house at Kewal Nagar, Delhi. This plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that petitioner herself admitted that she purchased two properties bearing plot No. 75 out of her own funds and property bearing No.30, Kewal Nagar by selling all her gold and silver omaments and another plot of 100 square yards bearing No. 16 out of Khasra No. 12/23 situated in Village Libaspur. Plot of 100 square CM(M) No. 72/2010 ^ yards was independent of the other properties which stood in the name of the petitioner. 8. Trial Court has observed that Petitioner, though denied that she was receiving monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-, but did not plead that no portion of the said property had been let out. The Court, therefore, in my view rightly drew an adverse inference against the petitioner and held that she was having rental income. 9. Petitioner has alleged that her monthly expenses are about Rs. 60,000/-. She is living in her own house and therefore, she has a roof on her head as well as her children. As regards day-to-day subsistence, from the facts and circumstances of the case, the court rightly gathered that she was having rental income of about Rs.20,000/- per month. 10. As pointed out above, it is the case of the petitioner herself that she and her children are maintaining themselves by parting tuitions and doing stitching work. Besides rental-income, petitioner, therefore, has other sources of income, which are sufficient to meet her day-to-day expenses and that of her children. Respondent has not challenged the impugned order of the Trial Court. CM(M) No. 72/2010 4 of 5 i 11. Under these circumstances, I find no merits in this petition. Hence, the same is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos.1050-51/2010 12. Since the petition itself has been dismissed, both these applications have become infructuous. The same are accordingly disposed of. ARUNA SURESH, J. JANUARY 20, 2010 sb CM(M) No. 72/2010 ^