Delhi District Court
Smt. Sayma Khan vs Sh. Arif Khan on 11 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONIKA SAROHA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(MAHILA COURT), EAST DISTRICT KKD, DELHI
Case No. 196/10
Smt. Sayma Khan
d/o Sh. Md. Hussain Khan,
w/o Sh. Arif Khan
r/o 18/89, Kalyanpuri, New Delhi-110091. ..... Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Arif Khan
s/o Sh. Mobin Khan
R/o-Village, Sayyed Nagar, Post Barsanda, Bada Post Rani Gang,
Distt. Sultanpur-227816(UP). ..... Respondent
INTERIM ORDER:
The Present petition has been filed u/s 125 CrPC. Vide this order I shall decide the application for interim maintenance. The material contentions of the petitioner as culled out from the petition are mentioned in the paragraph that follows:
1. That the petitioner got married with respondent on 14.06.2007 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. That after the marriage the parties cohabited together at UP, Gujrat and Delhi at different times. That soon after marriage, demand for more dowry was made and the petitioner was harassed for the same by the respondent husband and his relatives. That in April 2008 respondent threw her out of the matrimonial house and she is living in her parental house since then. The petitioner has prayed in this interim application under consideration that as the respondent is earning Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand) pm as salary from the job of a DTP operator and also earning money from freelancing to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) therefore, he must be directed to make payments towards maintenance of the petitioner accordingly.
2. In his reply, the respondent has admitted the factum of marriage with the complainant. However, he has denied that any cruelty on grounds of dowry or Case No. 196/10 Sayma Khan Vs. Arif Khan Page 1 of 3 any other ground was committed upon the petitioner. Further he has stated that it was the petitioner who has willingly left the matrimonial home out of her own will. Also, the respondent has stated that parties never lived in Delhi together therefore, courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to try this petition. Further, the respondent has denied that he is earning Rs. 30,000/- pm from different sources as mentioned by the petitioner. Infact he has stated that he is earning only Rs.
Rs. 3,000/- pm while working as a labour in a printing press. He has also alleged that the petitioner is also self employed and earning sufficient to maintain herself.
3. Pleadings are complete at the time passing of this order. At this stage, there is no evidence before this court to establish any of the averments of either parties neither can any be obtained at this stage. Therefore, only a prima facie view can be taken. Considering the admissions by the respondent, the factum of marriage is admitted, therefore, the estranged wife living separately is prima facie entitled to be maintained by her husband. The issue of jurisdiction is also such as can be decided only after evidence.
4. Now, the respondent has filed one letter from his employer one Bharat Engineering Works stating that the respondent is only earning Rs. 140/- per day. Now, this letter does not even mention as to who has written it, i.e. whether the proprietor, partner, Manager or any supervisor has written it. No name or designation of maker has been mentioned. Therefore, the document is not such as can be prima facie relied upon. However, the respondent is at liberty to prove this document as per law at the time of evidence but at this stage, this court can not base its views on this document which is cryptic.
5. Thus, as there is no evidence regarding the salary of the respondent adduced by either parties there is nothing before this court to ascertain the monthly income of the respondent. However, the respondent is an able bodied Case No. 196/10 Sayma Khan Vs. Arif Khan Page 2 of 3 middle aged man therefore, he is expected to be able to earn at least the minimum wages as prescribed by the Government. Thus, he is presumed to be earning at least the minimum wages prescribed under the rules as applicable to the state of U.P. as the respondent admittedly resides in District Sultanpur, U.P.
6. Therefore, the respondent is deemed to be earning atleast Rs. 4550/-(four thousand five hundred and fifty) P.M. This rate is arrived at after considering the minimum wages as prevailing in the state of UP with effect from 01.04.2012, which is around Rs. 175/- per day for an unskilled labour working with a printing press. As mentioned above the respondent has himself conceded to be working with a printing press.
7. Now, the respondent has no where avered as to what are his other liabilities. He has not mentioned the age of his parents and whether they have any separate source of income. Therefore, as it has not been brought on record that he has any other liability to discharge other than maintaining his wife and himself, therefore, in the facts and circumstances the respondent is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1520/-(fifteen hundred and twenty) pm to the petitioner as maintenance. This order shall be effective from the date of filing of the petition and the respondent must pay the maintenance with effect from 26.07.2010.
8. Arrears be cleared within six months. Further regular payment be made in cash against acknowledgment or by payment in the bank account of the petitioner wife by 10th of every month regularly beginning from 10.05.2012 till the disposal of this petition finally. As due to shortage of almirahs CA application cannot be cleared. Copy be given to parties.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MONIKA SAROHA)
COURT ON 11.04.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate/Mahila Court
East/KKD/Delhi
Case No. 196/10 Sayma Khan Vs. Arif Khan Page 3 of 3