Delhi District Court
Mohd. Akhtar Ali vs Smt. Qamar Zehra on 9 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHUBIR SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CA No. 01/19
Mohd. Akhtar Ali
S/o late Mashiyat Ali
R/o. D145, MCD Staff Colony,
New Usmanpur,
New Delhi110053
.....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Qamar Zehra
W/o Shri Mohd. Akhtar Ali
D/o Shri Ale Nabi
R/o. D145, MCD Staff Colony,
New Usmanpur,
New Delhi110053
.....Respondent
ORDER
1. This adjudication is towards the disposal off the appeal under section 29 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Ld. M.M, Mahila Court, North East District, KKD Courts, Delhi. Vide the said order, the Ld. Trial Court decided the CA No.01/2019 Mohd. Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Qamar Zehra Page 1 of 5 application for interim maintenance filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) Smt. Qamar Zehra and ordered the appellant to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,000/ (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) per month to the petitioner and Rs. 9,000/ (Rupees Nine Thousand Only) per month to the minor daughter of the parties who has been residing with the petitioner/mother.
2. File perused. Ld. Counsel for appellant heard.
3. In the application under consideration, it is agitated that admittedly the appellant was a Govt. Employee i.e Teacher in the MCD School in Delhi yet his salary was Rs.35000/ and that he was having the responsibility to maintain his old aged widow mother, divorced sister as well as an employee to look after him as he himself was a handicap having 70 per cent disability and thus it was pressed upon that the impugned order of making payment of Rs.18,000/ ( Rs.9,000/ for the petitioner and Rs.9,000/ for the minor female child) was disproportionate to his income and deserves to be set aside.
CA No.01/2019 Mohd. Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Qamar Zehra Page 2 of 5
4. Perusal of the case file including the TSR makes it clear that the appeal has been drafted in a very clandestine manner. The material on record clearly shows that the appellant had placed certain such material on record before the Ld. Trial Court thereby showing that he had re married and was also having one female child from the second marriage born as on 19.10.2016. However, in the entire appeal, it has nowhere been reflected as such. Neither the second wife nor the issue born out of of the second wedlock have been shown as dependents of the appellant. It has also nowhere been made clear on the record as to on which date, month or year the second marriage was solemnized or as to what was the fate of the first marriage i.e whether any divorce etc took place or not and if so, on which date, month or year. Apparently, the appellant did not even inform about any of these happenings to the concerned Govt. Department. Moreover, perusal of his salary slip makes it clear that his total emoluments are to the tune of Rs.58206/ as per the Salary Statement for the Month of December, 2018. This statement also reflects that this amount does not include any HRA as he has been residing in a Govt. accommodation. It has nowhere been pleaded or otherwise brought on record that since when the appellant had been living in a Govt. CA No.01/2019 Mohd. Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Qamar Zehra Page 3 of 5 accommodation. Hence, the only option is to assume that the actual earning/net amount payable to the appellant on the basis of which the impugned order was passed was excluding the HRA amount. The salary statement also makes it clear that he is being paid Travel Allowance worth Rs.3600/ per month and Special Travel Allowance (for disabled) also to the tune of Rs.3600/(total Rs.7200/) along with D.A on TA/STA to the tune of Rs.648/. This amount is sufficient for the purpose of the expenses towards travel etc to the place of work. A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Ld. Trial Court passed the said order assuming the actual earnings (excluding HRA) of the appellant herein to the tune of Rs.35,000/ per month and divided it between the three I.e petitioner, respondent and their female child in terms of Judgment titled as Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra, 2004(74) DRJ 99 of our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, there is nothing on record so as to find fault with. However, it is being made clear herein that any other order of interim maintenance shall duly be taken care of and the total amount of interim maintenance shall not exceed Rs.18,000/ per month unless otherwise redecided on a fresh application on account of change of the facts and circumstances. With these observations, the appeal under CA No.01/2019 Mohd. Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Qamar Zehra Page 4 of 5 consideration is being disposed of as dismissed having no merits.
5. Copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned and rest file be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by RAGHUBIR
RAGHUBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2019.01.10
14:14:43 +0530
Announced in open Court (Raghubir Singh)
as on 09.01.2019 Additional Sessions Judge02
North East District, KKD Courts,
Delhi
CA No.01/2019 Mohd. Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Qamar Zehra Page 5 of 5