Delhi District Court
Mohd Salim Khan vs . Smt Samim Begum on 30 November, 2013
Mohd Salim Khan Vs. Smt Samim Begum
. CA NO: 105/13
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CA NO: 105/13
Mohd. Salim Khan
S/o Late Chhotu Khan
R/o village Dikana
Tehsil Barout,
District Bagpat, UP ... Appellant
Versus
Smt Samim Begum
W/o Sh. Salim Khan
D/o Sh Mangat
R/o village Bamnoli,
sector-28, Dwarka, New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 12.08.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 25.11.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 30.11.2013.
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) against the order dated 29.06.2013 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the ld.trial court, whereby appellant was directed to give sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs.1,500/- per month for her children.
2. The ground of challenging the impugned order was that Ld. Magistrate did not consider the Domestic Inspection report and CA NO: 105/12 1/4 Mohd Salim Khan Vs. Smt Samim Begum . CA NO: 105/13 there are no allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the appellant. Hence impugned order could not be passed against the appellant.
3. The second ground of challenging the impugned order was that Ld. Magistrate in a mechanical manner assessed the salary of appellant to be Rs.10,000/-, ignoring the salary certificate filed on record by the appellant. Accordingly, it was prayed that impugned order be set aside.
4. Notice was issued to the respondent but despite service, respondent chose not to appear and contest this appeal.
5. I have heard the counsel for appellant and have gone through the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
6. The first ground of challenging the appeal that there is no Domestic Inspection Report filed by the protection officer reporting about the cruelty being suffered by the respondent before the Ld. Trial court, is not acceptable as Domestic Inspection report reporting cruelty being suffered by the respondent at the hand of the appellant vide report dated 14.09.2011 filed by Parmesh Tokas, Protection officer(SW) was before the Ld. Magistrate. Therefore this contention is accordingly rejected.
7. The second contention of the appellant that Ld. Trial court had ignored his salary certificate produced from Fancy Safe and Furniture at the time of passing the impugned order is not acceptable as in the impugned order the salary certificate from Fancy Safe and Furniture has been duly considered. The impugned order records that as per salary certificate filed on record, appellant's earning has been assessed to be Rs.3,600/- per month.
CA NO: 105/12 2/4Mohd Salim Khan Vs. Smt Samim Begum . CA NO: 105/13
8. I have carefully perused the salary certificate issued by Fancy Safe and Furniture dated 18.02.2013 and in the said certificate, it is mentioned by the employer that appellant has been employed by them w.e.f 18.02.2013 at a monthly salary of Rs.3,600/- per month. The application for grant of interim maintenance was filed on 14.09.2011 and salary certificate pertains to the period after 18.02.2013. No document was produced by the respondent to show as to what was his income between 14.09.2011 till 18.02.2013. The withholding of income by the appellant from 14.09.2011 till 18.02.2013 was sufficient enough for the Ld. Trial court to have assessed the income of the appellant. In the maintenance cases, it is generally observed that husband do not disclose their true income just to evade their responsibility of maintaining the wife and children. Therefore, courts have given liberty to assess the income of husband taking into account prevailing economic condition. It is not believable that a person would be able to sustain his livelihood in the city like Delhi in the salary of Rs.3,600/- per month. Further, even the appellant has not disclosed his income for the period from 14.09.2011 till 18.02.2013. Therefore, in these circumstances, the assessing of income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/- per month which is just little above statutory minimum wage, was justified by ld. Trial court and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the income arrived at by the ld. Trial court of the appellant.
9. Secondly the maintenance granted to the respondent of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month for her children can not be termed to be excessive in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. File be consigned to CA NO: 105/12 3/4 Mohd Salim Khan Vs. Smt Samim Begum . CA NO: 105/13 record room.
TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 30.11.2013 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
CA NO: 105/12 4/4