Vijay Goel vs Natasha

Aruna Suresh, J.—Parties to the petition were married according to Hindu Rites on 20.02.2007 at Delhi. After marriage number of disputes arose between them. Since they could not continue to live together, they separated and Petitioner thereafter filed a petition u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "HM Act") seeking divorce against the Respondent. In the said petition, Respondent filed an application u/s 24 H.M. Act on 4.3.2009 and sought interim maintenance for herself. The said application was allowed and the Trial Court awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- per month to the Respondent wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 4.3.2009 besides litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, this petition has been filed.

Trial Court after considering the salary slip of the Petitioner and also the fact that a person who has been running a business in textiles till 30.11.2007 would become a Salesman for a meager salary of Rs.4,000/- assessed his income at Rs.7,500/-. Para 6 of the impugned order reads:-

Though the Petitioner has placed the salary slip of Rs.4000/- showing his income as Salesman but it cannot be believed in view of the fact that the person who himself is running the business in textiles till 30.11.2007 have all of a sudden become a Salesman. This is common knowledge when the application u/s 24 HMA is filed the non applicant has a tendency to conceal his true income and it is all more difficult to know true income when persons are self employed or in unrecognized sector. The Petitioner for the purpose of anticipatory bail have arranged Rs. 3 lacs for the Respondent, which shows that he has income and status in the society to arrange such a hefty amount. Therefore, in view of the status and standard of the petitioner and other circumstances I assess his income at Rs.7500/-.

Trial Court rightly considered the general attitude of husbands to conceal their income especially when they are self employed or are employed in some private sector and it becomes difficult for the Court to assess their actual income. Even if, Petitioner, who had been doing business of selling all sorts of interlining fabrics on wholesale basis under the name and style "Vijay Textiles" at X-209, Chabbra Market, Tagore Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi can definitely be considered a semi-skilled labour if not skilled labour. Though a person dealing in such like business learns expertise to understand the business which he carried out, he claimed that he is a Salesman with A-1,/Fabricators, IX/6198, Jain Mandir Gali No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 and his income for a month would be generally around Rs.5,850/-. It is pertinent that after revision of wages an unskilled labour is entitled to get Rs.5272/- for a month and a semi-skilled labour is entitled for Rs.5,850/-. Considering the minimum wages payable to the Petitioner even if he is employed in private service, he at present is earning about Rs.6,000/- per month. At the time when the order was passed, he must be earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month.

Trial court took into consideration the factum of Petitioner having deposited Rs. 3 lacs in the criminal case registered against him on behest of the Respondent for seeking his anticipatory bail. A man of meager income of Rs.4,000/- under the circumstances would not be financially capable of arranging Rs.3 lacs for the Respondent to ensure grant of anticipatory bail.

''Ritu Raj Kant vs. Anita 154 (2008) DLT 505'' relied upon by the Petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, it was observed that maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earning of a person and not on the basis of his being able-bodied person. The Court also observed in that case that there was no job guarantee given by the Govt. to every able bodied person and many persons are jobless.

In this case, Petitioner is employed for gain and is a well bodied person. Therefore, facts and circumstances of the said case and the case before me are different in nature.

Under the circumstances, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of Trial Court which may need interference.

Hence, petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. CM APPL Nos. 5069/2010 (for stay) and 5070/2010 (for exemption) also stands disposed of.