Delhi District Court
Pankaj Vaish vs . Sonu on 17 October, 2012
Pankaj Vaish Vs. Sonu
. CA NO: 29/12
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CA NO: 29/12
Pankaj Vaish
S/o Sh.Jagannath Vaish
R/o Quarter No. 12/4, Regiment Tank
MES Colony, Ambala Cantt.
(Haryana). ... Appellant
Versus
Smt.Sonu
W/o Sh.Pankaj Vaish
D/o Sh.Kharati Lal
C/o Sh.Abhishek Gupta
R/o H.NO.RZ-28A, Raj Nagar, Part-I
Old Mehrauli Road, Palam Colony
New Delhi-110 045. ... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 18.08.2012
Date on which judgment reserved : 15.10.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced : 17.10.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter after referred to as DV Act) challenging the order dated 05.07.2012 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the ld.trial court.
2. Vide the impugned order, the ld.trial court directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son of respondent from the date of filing the application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from DV Act.
CA NO: 29/12 1/4
Pankaj Vaish Vs. Sonu
. CA NO: 29/12
3. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the ld.trial court passed the order in haste without going through the reply filed by the appellant. Secondly, the ld.trial court failed to appreciate that although appellant is living separately from his parents but still he has liability towards his parents and younger brother. It is further submitted that younger sister of appellant has recently been murdered by her in-laws and appellant has to attend the District Court at Saharanpur with regard to investigation of the said case. Thirdly, the ld.trial court failed to appreciate the expenses incurred by the appellant i.e. Rs.5,000/- towards rent, Rs.7,000/- towards household expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses of the appellant. Fourthly, the ld.trial court failed to appreciate that respondent is employed with Yatra India Conference Consortium Pvt.Ltd.and is getting a salary of Rs.8,000/-per month. Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.
4. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. Counsel for respondent submitted that he will argue the appeal without filing any reply. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing of arguments on appeal.
5. I have heard the counsel for respondent Sh.N.K.Aggarwal. The counsel for appellant did not appear to lead arguments despite grant of opportunity. I have also called the trial court record and have perused the same.
6. The first ground raised in the appeal challenging the impugned order do not call for any interference as the ld.trial court has not passed the impugned order in haste and reply of appellant has been duly CA NO: 29/12 2/4 Pankaj Vaish Vs. Sonu . CA NO: 29/12 considered. The impugned order reflects that admission of appellant in his reply regarding his employment with Convergys and monthly income of Rs.16,000/-per month and his admission that he was staying separately from his parents, have been duly considered by the ld.trial court and there is no material on record to suggest that the ld.trial court has passed the impugned order in haste without going through the reply filed by the appellant.
7. The second ground raised in the appeal that the ld.trial court failed to take into account the liabilities of the appellant towards his parents and younger brother, also do not make out any ground for interference in the impugned order as reply of appellant shows that all such averments were absent in the reply filed before the ld.trial court and they have been taken for the first time at the stage of appeal. Further, even in the appeal, appellant has only set out his moral responsibilities towards his parents and younger brother and there is no averment that he has to incur any expenses towards his parents and younger brother. Therefore, on this ground also, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
8. The third ground raised by the appellant also does not call for any interference as appellant has not placed on record any document to show that he is paying rent of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the ld.trial court rightly passed the impugned order considering the income of appellant to be Rs.16,000/-per month.
9. The last ground raised by the appellant challenging the impugned order is with regard to employment of respondent with Yatra.Com and getting a salary of Rs.8,000/-per month. On this ground also, impugned order cannot be set aside as para 45 of reply of appellant CA NO: 29/12 3/4 Pankaj Vaish Vs. Sonu . CA NO: 29/12 reflects that respondent was employed with Yatra.Com prior to her marriage and at that point of time, she was getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, as per the own case set up by the appellant, respondent was employed prior to her marriage with Yatra.Com. Further, with regard to her post marriage employment, although it is averred by appellant in para 45 of reply that respondent is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by providing home tuitions and stitching clothes but no proof of the same has been filed on record.
10. It is an admitted case of appellant that appellant is living alone and he is not required to maintain any other person except the respondent and her son. Appellant has also admitted his salary to be Rs.16,000/- per month. Therefore, the ld.trial court rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-per month to the respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to the son of respondent by taking into account salary of appellant and the liability of appellant. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal file be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 17.10.2012 ASJ-04/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
CA NO: 29/12 4/4