CM(M) No.420/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) 420/2010 Date of Decision: May 05, 2010 MUKESH @ GAJRAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.P.Shukla, Advocate. versus SMT. MEENA ..... 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) 420/2010 and CM APPL Nos.5771-72/2010 1. On an application of the Respondent filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) in the divorce petition, the Court vide impugned order dated 10th December, 2009 awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Respondent from the date of the application i.e. 4.1.2008, besides litigation expenses of Rs.6,000/-. Aggrieved CM(M) No.420/2010 Page 2 of 3 by the said order, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner husband. 2. Mr. R.P. Shukla counsel for the Petitioner has urged that parties to the petition were married on 9.7.1999. The marriage was never consummated but a male child was born to the Respondent on 24.7.2007 and therefore the Trial Court committed an error in awarding maintenance to the Respondent. 3. Marriage between the parties is not disputed. However, Petitioner has disputed that he is not the father of the child, born on 24.7.2007. 4. Petitioner has already filed an application for DNA test in order to prove the paternity of the child. While awarding maintenance, the Court did consider that Petitioner disputed the paternity of the child. The Court is within its right to get the DNA test of the minor child as well as of the parties to the petition done to ascertain the paternity of the child. The Trial Court, if has not yet passed an appropriate order on the application of the Petitioner, shall do the needful on the next CM(M) No.420/2010 Page 3 of 3 date of hearing fixed before it. 5. As regards maintenance for the Respondent, the Court took into consideration the fact that Petitioner is getting monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- besides other consequential benefits. He owns a motorcycle and also Rs.700/- to 800/- per month as overtime, besides conveyance allowance which is about Rs.15/- per day. The Trial Court assessed the income of the Petitioner as not less than Rs.6,000/- per month and accordingly awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Respondent. It is noted that no maintenance has been awarded to the child. 6. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order, when the Court has awarded maintenance within the ambit of principles of law under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. 7. Attested copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court through special messenger forthwith. ARUNA SURESH, J. MAY 05, 2010/vk