Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. vs . Shri Shish Pal Meena on 12 August, 2013

                             Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena

       IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN METROPOLITAN
     MAGISTRATE : MAHILA COURT (E) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
                            DELHI
                             No. 304/09
       SMT. SHARDA DEVI & ANR. VS. SHRI SHISH PAL MEENA


ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application moved for interim maintenance by petitioners Smt. Sharda Devi (hereinafter referred to as petitioner no. 1) and Master Suraj (hereinafter referred to as petitioner no. 2) against Shri Shish Pal Meena (hereinafter referred to as respondent)

2. The facts of the petition are that petitioner no. 1 is a legally wedded wife of the respondent and the factum of marriage and paternity of child has not been disputed by both the parties. It is also admitted that the custody of the child is with the petitioner no. 1.

3. There are various allegations and counter allegations against each other which cannot be decided at this stage as the same requires appreciation of evidence which has not been led at this stage.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, it can be presumed that the petitioner no. 1 is separately residing from the respondent with sufficient cause and is therefore, entitled to claim interim maintenance.

5. Petitioner has averred that petitioner no. 1 is a household lady and she has no source of income whereas, respondent is a Government Servant and has got promotion as Head Constable Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena in BSF and is drawing salary of about Rs. 28,000/- per month and is also having income from agricultural land in the village and has no liability else than to maintain the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid averments in the petition made at the time of filing of petition, she has filed an affidavit in view of judgment Puneet Kaur Vs. Inderjit Sing Sawhney, 183 (2011) DLT 403 wherein, she has stated that she has now come to know that respondent has taken a VRS from the service and is taking pension and after retirement respondent is running a business of General Store in Kasba Amarpur, Near Pahasu, Distt. Bulandshaher and is earning Rs. 45000/- per month . She has further stated that respondent is also having agriculture land in Kasba Amar Pur, Distt. Bulandshaher and has annexed copy of share certificate of the respondent and has stated that he is earing Rs. Six lacs per month from the agricultural land. She has further stated that he is also having a motorcycle bearing no. UP 13 W 8076 Hero Honda Glamour.

6. The application is opposed by the respondent who has simply denied that petitioner no. 1 being a household lady. He has further denied being a Government Servant however he has not stated anything. He has also denied having any agricultural land in village. He has stated that that petitioner no. 1 is doing the job of stitching and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is able to maintain herself and petitioner no. 2. He has stated that he has retired from his service and getting pension of Rs. 5000/- per month and he has also responsibility of his old age Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena ailing mother and five married sisters. He has also filed a affidavit wherein he has disclosed his pension of amount Rs. 8665/- per month. He has disclosed the joint agricultural land in native village. He has further disclosed house and agricultural land jointly. He has further stated some articles are lying with him and other valuable things and jewellery and cash are lying with the petitioner. He has also stated that he has taken loan of Rs. 78000/- and is giving interest from his account i.e. Rs. 1000/- he has stated that his household expenses are Rs. 5000/- per month, medical expenses Rs. 1200/- per month, legal/litigation expenses Rs. 20,000/- and travel expenses Rs. 500/-. He has further stated that he is patient of back pain and he has spent Rs. 49,740/- for his treatment. He has admitted having one two wheeler bearing no. UP 13W 8076 Hero Honda and a mobile phone. Along with he affidavit, he has filed photocopy of his pass-book from 12.4.2010 till 31.01.2013. He has also filed medical documents.

7. Argument heard. Record perused.

8. Respondent has not been able to show any document with respect to income of petitioner from the stitching work. Therefore at this stage, it is presumed that she is not earning anything. As regards his own income, he has admitted that he is earning Rs. 8665/- per month as pension after taking VRS from BSF. He has orally denied running any general store in Kasba Amarpur, Near Pahasu, Distt. Bulandshaher. Though he has admitted having agricultural land jointly with other family Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena members. The documents pertaining agricultural land has also been annexed by the petitioner showing that the respondent to be one of the co-owners. This fact has been admitted by the respondent herein though he has stated that he is earning Rs. 8665/- per month only. However, on the contrary his expenditure is more than his income. He has shown his household expenses to be Rs. 5000/- per month, medical expenses Rs. 1200/- per month, legal/litigation expenses Rs. 20,000/- and travel expenses Rs. 500/-. Apart from that he has shown that he had spent Rs. 49,740/- for his treatment as he is patient of back pain. He has also been maintaining bike and mobile. The expenses which the respondent has shown cannot be meted out from the pension of Rs. 8665/- which he has shown to be getting. Apart from that, he has filed the photocopy of pass book. The careful perusal of the record reveals that apart from the pension there are several entries of cash deposit by self of around Rs. 5000/- somewhere. This cash deposit by self has not been explained as to from where the respondent is receiving the cash when he is receiving the pension straightaway in the bank account. Further perusal of the pass book entries shows that the withdrawal of the respondent is very frequent and of a good amount. A person who is earning Rs. 8665/- per month which a person getting basic minimum wage in Delhi is more or less cannot withdraw an amount of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 4000/- at a time from his account and that cash deposited by self has not been explained. Accordingly, it can be inferred that Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena even after filing the affidavit, the respondent has not come with the actual income. Accordingly, the income of the respondent is assessed to be Rs. 20000/- per month and his income is divided into four portions i.e. one for petitioner no. 1, one for petitioner no. 2 and two portion to be retained by respondent. Hence, petitioner no. 1 and 2 are awarded maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month each from the date of filing of petition till disposal of the present petition.

9. The aforesaid order shall not tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case which shall be decided subsequently.

10. The default shall be viewed in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in GAURAV SODHI VS. DIVYA SODHI - 120 DLT (2005) 426. Matter now to come up for report on payment and recording of petitioner's evidence on 07.01.2014. Let advance copy of affidavit be supplied to opposite party at least 10 days before NDOH.

(VANDANA JAIN) MM/Mahila Court/East 12.8.2013 Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena No. 304/09 12.8.2013 Present: None Vide separate order passed today on the interim application, the present application has been disposed off. Matter now to come up for petitioner's evidence on 07.1.2014. Let advance copy of affidavit be supplied to opposite party at least 10 days before NDOH.

(VANDANA JAIN) MM/Mahila Court/East 12.08.2013 Smt. Sharda Devi & Anr. Vs. Shri Shish Pal Meena V-165/12 05.3.2013 Present: None As the interim maintenance in the connected petition u/s 125 Cr. PC. has been passed, there is no need of passing order on the interim application in the present complaint. Matter now to come up for petitioner's evidence on 29.8.2013. Let advance copy of affidavit be supplied to opposite party at least 10 days before NDOH.

(VANDANA JAIN) MM/Mahila Court/East 05.03.2013