* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CMfM) 138/2010 Dateof Decision:T' Febmary,2010 PRAVEEN LOCHAB Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus SARITA@ MAUSAM& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Anand and Mr.Vaibhav Bharti, Advocates with Respondents in person. % 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 reporteror not? (3) Whether thejudgment should be reported in the Digest ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH, J. (OraO Caveat No. 29/2010 in CM(M) 138/2010 1. Since caveator has appeared on advance notice through Mr. Anand Advocate, who accepts notice, caveat stands disposed of CM(M) 138/2010 CM(M) No.138/2010 Page I of4 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 2. Petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce against the respondentunder Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') along with pendent lite maintenance for herself and her two minor children, namely, Yash and Lakshita. 3. The Trial court vide its impugned order dated December, 2009 was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.33,000/- per month to respondentNo.l. and Rs.20,000/-per month each for the two children from the date of filing of the application besides Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses. While doing so. Trial Court took into consideration income of the petitioner from his services, Rs.15,000/- per month as agricultural income from the agricultural land situated at Sonepat, Haryana, Rs.50,000/- per month as rental income from H.No.R-235, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi and another sum of Rs.50,000/- per month from money lending business. 4. To my mind. Trial Court assessed the income of the petitioner on the higher side. No evidence is placed on record by the respondent to indicate that petitioner is doing the business of money lending and is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month from the same. Similarly, no proof of rental income has been placed on record. It is not disputed that the house at Narela is owned by parents of the CM(M)No.138/2010 Page 2 of4 petitioner. It is not known if it is an ancestral property. But according to the respondent, this is an ancestral property and therefore, petitioner has a share in the same. Similar are the circumstancesregardingagriculturalmcome. Though petitionerhas allegedthathehas been disinheritedby his parents,the fact remains, primafacie when petitionerhas a share in the ancestralproperty,he cannot be disinherited from his share by his parents. 5. Therefore, considering income of the petitioner from the agriculturalland, rental income as well as his salary, the Trial Court awarded exorbitant maintenance to the respondent and her children. Similarly,litigation expenses awarded to respondent are also on higher side. 6. Hence, petitionis allowed. The impugnedorder of the Trial Court dated 11^ December, 2009 is hereby modified. Petitionershall pay a sum of Rs.16,000/-per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each for the two children from the date offilingofthe applicationi.e. 2"** June, 2009 besidesanother sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is noted that petitionerhas consentedto this order. Petitionershall payarrearsof maintenance for two months along with maintenance for the month ofJanuary2010 and February2010 on orbefore26'^ February,2010 CM(M) No. 138/2010 Page 3 of4 i.e. the date fixed before the Trial Court. He shall pay the litigation expenses along with maintenancefor March 2010 by 31'^ March, 2010 and shall continueto pay the maintenanceas fixed with one month arrears by 1of each month till the arrears are cleared and thereafter shall continue to pay the maintenanceas awarded to the respondentand the childrentill the final disposal of the petitionfor divorce. 7. An attestedcopy of this order be sent to the Trial Court throughSpecialMessengerfor seeingcompliance. CM No.1942/2010 ffor stay) 8. With disposalof the petitionitself,this applicationhas become infmctuous and the same is accordingly disposed of \ StJRESH, J. FEBRUARY 01,2010 sb ARUNA h7/|. ^ MM^ -frr-r-* '0^. I/./,. ch fK «r*« ^ CM(M)No.138/2010 Page 4 of4