Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashish Goyal vs Himani Goyal on 22 December, 2015
260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR(F)-83-2014
Date of Decision : 22.12.2015
Ashish Goyal ...... Petitioner
Versus
Himani Goyal ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. J.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Harpreet Multani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate
for the respondent.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed against the order awarding Rs.20,000/- as maintenance.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the total income of the petitioner was as per income tax returns was Rs.1,77,411/- per year because the petitioner was working as a sales man in a shoe store.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that actually the petitioner and his father jointly run the business of footwear trading and that is what was exactly mentioned in the biodata which was sent by the petitioner at the time of his marriage.
SUNITA NAGPAL2015.12.24 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-83-2014 -2- Learned senior counsel has countered this by arguing that though that biodata is accepted yet this was a 'normal exaggeration of the prospects of the bridegroom'. Learned counsel have placed on record various documents relating to the turnover of the trading business and as per the latest document Annexure P-9 the turnover for the year 2014-2015 was approximately Rs.1.20 crores and the turnover for the first two quarters of 2015- 2016 is depicted as Rs.92.00 lacs.
Learned senior counsel has argued that in any case the income of the father can not be clubbed with that of the son and has relied upon Lalit Bhola Vs. Nidhi Bhola reported as 2013 Crl. Law Journal 1959.
Learned counsel for the respondent has on the other hand argued that though he accepts that the computation of the income as made by the trial judge was wrong yet in the totality of circumstances the monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- can in no circumstance be termed as excessive. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is from a prominent business family. I give my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel and in my opinion some weight has to be given to both of them. No doubt what is exclusive income of the father can never be clubbed with that of the son but the statement made by the petitioner in his SUNITA NAGPAL 2015.12.24 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh CRR(F)-83-2014 -3- matrimonial biodata to the effect that he is running the trading business can not also be deemed as 'normal exaggeration'. In the circumstances it has to be held that though the amount of Rs.20,000/- is too high, the amount of Rs.6,000/- which is sought to be suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner is too low.
In my opinion keeping in view all the facts and circumstances the maintenance amount of Rs.11,000/- would be appropriate.
The petition is partly allowed.
Since the main case has been decided, the Criminal Misc.Application, if any, stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) 22.12.2015 JUDGE sunita/pooja sharma-I SUNITA NAGPAL 2015.12.24 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh