Delhi District Court
Ritu Sharma vs Jaysheel Raina on 21 November, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : MAHILA COURT (E) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : DELHI
CC-272/12
RITU SHARMA VS JAYSHEEL RAINA
ORDER
1. This order would dispose of the interim application for maintenance filed by Ritu Sharma and Master Aditya (herein referred to as petitioners) against Jaysheel Raina (herein referred to as respondent).
2. The factum of marriage between the parties has not been disputed. One male child has been born from the wedlock, same is also not disputed.
3. There are allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other by both the parties which cannot be decided at this stage and can only be determined after leading of evidence by the parties.
4. From the averments, it is presumed that the petitioner is living separately from the respondent with sufficient cause and is entitled to claim interim maintenance.
5. Petitioner no 1 has stated that she has no source of income whereas respondent is a man of means and is gainfully employed with CAPGEMINI INDIA Pvt. Ltd., SEP-2, B-3, GOREJ INDUSTRIES COMPLEX, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI, MUMBAI-400079, as a SENIOR CONSULTANT and he is earning approximately Rs. 1 lac per month.
Respondent has stated that petitioner no 1 is under influence of her 2 friend Ajay who used to call her even during their honeymoon. He has stated that before marriage, she was employed with Unitech, Nodia and was earning Rs 25,000/- per month. Thereafter she shifted to Shri Ram Management Institute Greater Noida from June 2008 to May 2010 and she was taken there by Ajay who became a Director there. Thereafter she has taken job in BLS Management Institute since December 2011 where Ajay has again joined as Director and is earning Rs 40,000/- per month therefrom. He submits that he is earning Rs 67,000/- per month out of which he is paying Rs 31,885 per annum for insurance and Rs 40,000/- per annum for HDFC children plan. He submits that he is paying Rs 3000/- per month as EMI for loan of Rs 7.5 lacs taken for his M.B.A. Therefore his salary comes to Rs 47,000/- per month approximately.
6. Heard. Record Perused.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that replication to reply of respondent has not been filed by petitioner and she has not rebutted the allegations with respect to her earnings in the WS. Respondent, though has stated that he is earning only Rs 47,000/- per month but he has deducted Rs 31,000/- per annum toward insurance and Rs 40,000/- per annum for HDFC Children plan which comes around Rs 5500/- per month in total and is paying Rs 3000/- per month as EMI for the loan of Rs 7.5 lacs. This amount of Rs 8500/- per month is not a compulsory deduction and has 3 been taken by the respondent out of his own though he has stated that he is paying Rs 40,000/- towards HDFC Children Plan per year. He is not giving a single penny to the child i.e. petitioner no 2 Master Aditya for his maintenance at present. Being father respondent should be worried about the present of his son along with his future. Therefore earnings of respondent are taken to be around Rs 55,000/- per month (Rs 47,000+Rs 8000/-). Since replication has not been come on record. It is presumed that petitioner no 1 is also earning. Therefore petition qua petitioner no 1 Ritu Sharma is dismissed.
As far as petitioner no. 2 Master Aditya, an amount of Rs 18,000/- per month is awarded to the petitioner no 2 Master Aditya from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the same.
8. Payment made in any other case shall stand adjusted. Arrears be cleared within a period of three months.
9. 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 06/05/2014. Let advance copy of affidavit be supplied to opposite party at least 10 days before NDOH.
(Vandana Jain) MM Mahila Court/East 21.11.2013 4