Gaurav Lamba v. Mitali Maggo

O R D E R %

18.11.2024

¶1By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby he was directed to pay ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent/complainant.

¶2The petitioner is aggrieved by the passing of the impugned order and contends that though Rs.15,000/- per month has been directed to be paid, however, at the time of filing of the complaint, in terms of the affidavit filed by the parties, the difference in their respective salaries was not much. He submits that while at that time, the petitioner was earning Rs.36,000/-, the respondent, according to her income affidavit, was earning about Rs.33,000/-. He further submits that the petitioner has thereafter filed a revised income affidavit as per which, he is stated to be earning Rs.56,000/- per month since April, 2023.

¶3Pertinently, the impugned order is dated 19.12.2022 and since then, the trial has progressed. The impugned order only relates to the grant of ad-This is a digitally signed order. interim maintenance.

¶4Notably at that stage, only limited material was available before the Family Court, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is dismissed alongwith the pending applications.

¶5However, at the same time, I deem it apposite to direct that in case no order granting interim maintenance has been passed so far, the Family Court would take into account the relevant material that has come on record, and pass appropriate order, keeping in mind the income affidavits filed by the parties.

¶6Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the quantum of maintenance, and that in case at the time of disposal of the interim maintenance application/maintenance petition, the Family Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to lesser or higher maintenance, it would be at liberty to grant such adjustments of the arrears either way.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J NOVEMBER 18, 2024 PK

This is a digitally signed order.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 94/2024, CRL.M.A. 34279/2024, CRL.M.A. 34280/2024 and CRL.M.A. 34281/2024 GAURAV LAMBA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rupin Singh Dhama, Advocate versus MITALI MAGGO ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI