Manav Chopra v. Shalini

ORDER %

01.11.2011 1, Tine learned counsel for the assailed the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Rohini, fixing interim @ Rs.8000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/wife. said order been assailed on ground that respondent was working before the marriage as well as after the marriage Rs.20,000/- per month, while as the was running a shop of Computer hardwares in Rohini which he had to close on account of the financial loss suffered by him.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that he had to shift to Ludhiana as the respondent was creating tension in the family and consequently he had to take up a job there Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. from which he is getting only a sum of Rs.5000/-.

¶3Before dealing with these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner a brief background of the case would be relevant. The petitioner had got married according to the Hindu rites and rituals to respondent on

18.02.2009. At time of marriage was stated to be doing business, however, relations between parties were on account of the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent cruelty being inflicted on her. This resulted in filing of various litigations including present petition regarding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., by the respondent.

¶4It is alleged that the petitioner is having a income of Rs.50,000/- per month from his business of Computer Hardwares which he is running under name and style of M/s Magic Solutions in Sector-11, Rohini. It is also alleged that the mother of the is earning around Rs.40,000/- per month while as the is alleged to have created conditions on account of which the respondent had to abandon her matrimonial home.

¶4respondent had accordingly claimed a of Rs.25,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.5000/- as expenses for travelling from Calcutta to Delhi for attending hearing Rs.2000/- for miscellaneous expenses and a sum of Rs.11,000/- J as litigation expenses apart from the other expenses. After the disputes have arisen the respondent/wife has shifted to Calcutta where her parents were living.

¶5filed reply to application for grant of and took the plea that he is working in Ludhiana and earning Rs.5000/-. It was alleged by him in the reply that he -had to migrate to Ludhiana on account of the relations created by conduct of respondent. allegations of running a shop by the name and style of M/s Magic Solutions in Sector-11 is not denied although it is stated that shop is lying closed on account of heavy losses. It is also alleged that the respondent as she is employed and, therefore she is not entitled to the maintenance for the reason that she abandoned matrimonial home at her own volition.

¶6learned family judge after examining pleadings passed a reasoned order fixing the maintenance @ Rs.8000/- to be paid by the present petitioner to the respondent by taking the income of the petitioner @Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.50,000/- as alleged by the respondent. The reason for passing this order of @ Rs.8000/- has been given by the learned family judge in detail essentially he observed that .J still continue to show his telephone nunnber which he is maintaining on the website under name of M/s Magic Solutions. Although the allegation of shop being closed was accepted by the learned family judge, however, he observed that the shop must have been closed on account of the deliberate attempt on part of to avoid paying to the respondent. In view of the learned family judge it not been brought on record by present as to whether the shop was tenanted or self owned therefore, possibility of income being generated by letting out the shop to some private party and getting the rentals could not be ruled out. The learned family judge has also taken note of the fact that when the relationship between the parties is exaggerated claims on both sides are made. Taking note of these fact the learned family judge has observed that the has not been able to place any documentary evidence on record to show that the respondent any money from any employment and accordingly choose to pass an order with regard to the grant of maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month.

¶7I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reasoning given by learned family judge even otherwise also this being an interim order cannot be made a subject matter of a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that there is no abuse of the processes of law which warrants any interference of this Court. The petitioner will get full opportunity to adduce evidence to show that he is earning only Rs.5,000/- per month or even that he is not earning at all. At the stage of grant of interim the Court has to take only a prima facie view of the matter which it has done. I do not find any merit in the contentions which have been Meged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the petition is dismissed with liberty to raise all such pleas before the learned family judge during the course of trial. V.K. SHALI, J NOVEMBER 01, 2011 mr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3594/2011 MANAV CHOPRA Petitioner Througli: l^r.Azhar Qayum, Advocate versus SHALINI Respondent Througin: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI