Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1536 (DEL)

JASJIT KAUR v. SARABJEET SINGH

2007-07-31

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on 19. 11. 2003 in accordance with Sikh rites and are stated to have started living in the premises known as 101, Pleasant View Group Housing Society, Sector 14, vashi, New Mumba. It is stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant had a previous marriage which had been dissolved. The plaintiff had a child from the first marriage. Another child was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the defendant. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant started ill-treating and harassing her on account of dowry and even physically assaulted her. The plaintiff on account of such conduct of the defendant, lodged a police complaint dated 17. 02. 2005 and an FIR was registered. The parents of the plaintiff took away the plaintiff on 18. 02. 2005 for the aforesaid reason and since then the parties have been living separately. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance. ( 3 ) THE defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. The plaintiff had also filed an application for interim maintenance and thus, the statement of the defendant was recorded on 02. 02. 2006. On such examination, the defendant stated that he was residing at Sector 12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai and had taken the said premises on rent at Rs 1,000 per month. The defendant claimed that he was running a STD booth in Sector 14, Vashi Mumba. The defendant deposed that there were properties owned by his father in pursuance to the Will. The same did not devolve on him and the Will had been duly probated vide orders dated 26. 03. 2003. On the subsequent date, the witness also deposed that his son from marriage with the plaintiff was living with him, whose care was taken in his absence by his old servant. The father of the defendant had started a shop of shoe making in 1999 and after his demise defendant was running the shop along with his mother. The STD booth run by the defendant was opposite to the shop. ( 4 ) IN terms of the order dated 12. 05. The father of the defendant had started a shop of shoe making in 1999 and after his demise defendant was running the shop along with his mother. The STD booth run by the defendant was opposite to the shop. ( 4 ) IN terms of the order dated 12. 05. 2006, interim maintenance was fixed on the basis that the income of the defendant would be Rs 20,000/- per month and thus the plaintiff would be entitled to Rs 5,000/- per month with effect from 01. 04. 2005. ( 5 ) THE defendant stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte on 12. 05. 2006. The defendant is stated not to have paid any interim maintenance. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff in support of her case has filed her own affidavit by way of evidence as also an affidavit of her father. ( 7 ) THE witnesses have affirmed to what is stated in the plaint. It is claimed that from the shoe business being run by brother of the defendant in Mumbai, income would be at least Rs 30,000 per month. The brother of the defendant is also stated to be carrying on business of garments and is also running a STD and pco booth. An allegation has been made that the defendant has various properties in Vashi Mumbai valued at more than Rs 1 crore from which defendant would be deriving income of Rs 60,000/- per month. ( 8 ) THE defendant has not appeared but, in my considered view, all that the plaintiff has stated must not be assumed to be correct. In such matters element of exaggeration does take place. Further there is no material placed on record to substantiate the vast properties alleged to be of the defendant. At the stage when the statement of the defendant was recorded prior to fixing of interim maintenance, the question put forth to the defendant also resulted in a finding that his income would be Rs 20,000 per month. The affidavits of evidence do not show any such circumstance that has arisen by which income can be shown to be more than Rs 20,000 per month. It cannot be lost sight of that the child born out of the wedlock of the parties is being maintained by the defendant. The affidavits of evidence do not show any such circumstance that has arisen by which income can be shown to be more than Rs 20,000 per month. It cannot be lost sight of that the child born out of the wedlock of the parties is being maintained by the defendant. ( 9 ) I see no reason to take a different view than that taken at the stage when the interim maintenance was fixed, determining the right of the plaintiff at Rs 5,000 per month. ( 10 ) A decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the maintenance at the rate of Rs 5,000/- per month from 01. 04. 2005 onwards. ( 11 ) ON receipt of the amount by the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay requisite court fees. Same to be incorporated in the decree sheet. Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the present proceedings. ( 12 ) THE suit stands decreed accordingly.