Delhi District Court
Abhishek Dubey vs . Archana Tiwari on 11 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/ASJ (SOUTH), SAKET COUTS, NEW DELHI
CA 345/2018
ABHISHEK DUBEY Vs. ARCHANA TIWARI
CNR No. DLST01-005393-2018
Date of Institution : 17.08.2018
Date of Arguments : 11.04.2019
Date of Order : 11.04.2019
11.04.2019
Present :- Mr. D.D. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for appellant with
appellant in person.
Mr. Namit Saxena, Ld. Counsel for respondent with
respondent in person with her brother.
Arguments heard.
Put up at 4:00 pm for order.
(Rajesh Kumar Singh)
Special Judge-NDPS/ASJ(South)
Saket Courts/11.04.2019
At 4:00 pm
Present : None for appellant.
Respondent in person.
1. Appellant has challenged order dt. 17.07.2018 passed by the Court of Ld. MM-03 in CC no. 473826/16. By the impugned order, Ld. MM disposed of the application of the respondent herein/wife u/s. 23 DV Act. The appellant filed revision against the order which was registered as CR 343/18. Vide order dt. 12.09.2018, it was converted into an appeal and re-registered as CA 345/18. Ld.MM has directed the revisionist/ Crl. Appeal No. 345/18 Abhishek Dubey vs. Archana Tiwari 1/4 husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 2,500/- per month towards rent in lieu of alternate accommodation subject to placing on record the rent agreement and the rent receipts.
2. In the grounds of appeal it is stated that the revisionist is working in a proprietorship concern and he is getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- month excluding telephone and conveyance allowances. Salary slip has been filed with the income affidavit. The respondent has done Masters in Sociology and she is also "Prabhakar" in Music. She is capable of earning. If she wilfully does not work, she cannot claim maintenance in view of the judgements in the matter of Mamta Jaiswal vs. Ram Jaiswal 11 (7000) DMC 170 and Damanpreet Kaur vs. Indermit Juneja Crl. Rev. P. 344/2011 decided on 14.05.2012. In her affidavit, the respondent has mentioned monthly expenditure of Rs.1Lakh but she lives with her brother who is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. She is intentionally suppressing the information regarding her income. Ld. MM has drawn conclusions from the facebook page, veracity of which is still to be established. The Crl. Appeal No. 345/18 Abhishek Dubey vs. Archana Tiwari 2/4 revisionist is not in a position to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month.
3. This Court suggested the parties to go to mediation but it was submitted that earlier mediations have failed. Ld. Counsel for the parties took passover and tried to convince the parties to explore the possibility of settlement but the parties could not agree in this regard. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for the parties submitted their arguments on merit. I have considered the arguments and I have perused the record including the TCR.
4. In the affidavit of the respondent, there are exaggerations regarding income of the revisionist and her own monthly expenditure. This fact has been noted by the Ld. Trial Court. The revisionist does not contend that no maintenance should be allowed to the respondent. His grievance is regarding the quantum. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist stated that earlier the revisionist was paying Rs. 2,000/- per month and he is ready to pay the same.
5. Though the respondent is well educated, it is not the case of the revisionist that she was into any regular employment at the time of marriage or after the marriage. Crl. Appeal No. 345/18 Abhishek Dubey vs. Archana Tiwari 3/4 The possibility that she can earn, cannot be made a ground to deny interim maintenance to her when there is no material to show that she deliberately stopped working for gain. Ld. Trial Court rightly did not believe the revisionist that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The revisionist stated that the Tata Safari vehicle appearing in the photograph filed with the application of the respondent before Ld. Trial Court on 14.05.2018 for filing additional documents, belongs to his counsel at Lucknow and Ld. Counsel had requested him to advertise the vehicle for sale. Be that as it may, he does not deny the facebook profile in which he is seen sitting inside a car. The view taken by Ld. Trial Court regarding income of the revisionist is a possible view. Ld. Trial Court has not granted exorbitant amount to the respondent. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
6. The appeal is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court along with the Trial Court Record.
Digitally signed by Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:
2019.04.11 16:24:03 Announced & dictated in +0530 Open Court on 11.04.2019 (Rajesh Kumar Singh) Special Judge-NDPS/ASJ(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi.
Crl. Appeal No. 345/18 Abhishek Dubey vs. Archana Tiwari 4/4