RANI SETHI Vs. SUNIL SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application filed by Respondent (husband) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance from the Petitioner (wife). By the abovesaid order, trial court has directed the Petitioner (wife) to pay maintenance to the Respondent (husband) @ 20,000/-, per month, and 10,000/- as litigation expenses and also to provide Zen Car for the use of the Respondent (husband).

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has erroneously come to a finding with regard to the income of the Petitioner. While it is not in dispute that Petitioner is carrying out the business of running paying guest hostels in the name of Pradise PG, it is submitted by counsel for the Petitioner that the trial court has failed to consider the expenses of running the business which includes providing the students with boarding, lodging and transportation facilities and the earnings from the business are barely sufficient to maintain herself and her two children, whom she is solely supporting. It is further contended that the financial condition of the Petitioner has been ignored by the trial court. Counsel next submits that in fact the financial condition of the Petitioner would be evident from the fact that Petitioner is residing in a rented accommodation and is paying rent @ 12,500/-, per month. Mr. Sharma submits that trial court has completely lost sight of the fact that Petitioner has to maintain and provide for two unmarried children - one son, who is 26 years of age, and a daughter, who is 24 years of age. Counsel next submits that Petitioner has to not only provide for their maintenance but also plan their marriages and ensure a secured future for the children. Besides Petitioner has to look after herself. It is further submitted that Petitioner is medically unfit and is suffering from Leucoderma and arthritis and she has to spend on doctors, medicines and other tests. Copies of medical prescriptions have been placed on record in support of her contention.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even otherwise the Respondent is an able bodied person and he is in a position to maintain himself. Counsel further submits that Respondent is carrying on a business in the name and style of Sethi Contractor and accordingly the Respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. A copy of the visiting card of Sethi Contractor has been placed on record. Stress has also been laid by counsel for the Petitioner on the conduct and character of the Respondent. Various instances have been cited in the present petition by the Petitioner to show that Respondent has an immoral character. It is also contended that learned trial court has relied purely on the guess work to assess the income of the Petitioner and, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.