RAKESH KUMAR Vs. GEETA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant appeal is to the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Family Court') wherein the learned Family Court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 6,250/ - per month towards her interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application besides awarding a sum of Rs. 3,300/ - towards litigation expenses.

(2.) Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mr. R.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there being no basis, the learned Family Court has arbitrarily assumed and assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 25,000/ - per month and awarded an interim maintenance @ Rs. 6,250/ - per month on this income. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has also committed an apparent error in taking the view that the appellant is a skilled person and therefore, must be earning an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - per month. He further submits that the learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the respondent herself is a skilled lady possessing diploma in Computer DTP and has studied up to 12th standard and with this technical qualification of the respondent, she is well capable of earning an handsome amount for her sustenance. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent is gainfully employed and is working at a garment shop at Tilak Nagar but she has deliberately suppressed her income from the learned Family Court and from this Court as well. The learned counsel also submits that presently the appellant is unemployed and has no source of income even for his own sustenance and therefore, he is totally hard -pressed to pay any maintenance amount to the respondent.

(3.) The present appeal is strongly opposed by Mr. H.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that the appellant is earning a total income of Rs. 65,000/ - per month as he is working as a Senior Software Designer (Engineer) in a factory of computer designs of all kinds of designer soles of the shoes and sandals in Gurgaon. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant is an owner of two TSRs (3 -wheeler scooters) which he gives on contract basis to other persons and from this source also he earns an amount of Rs. 20,000/ - per month. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant is the only son of his parents and is a joint owner of property bearing No. D -50, Jaswant Colony, Budh Vihar, Phase -II, Delhi. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant is in the habit of suppressing his correct and true income from the Court. Earlier also an order under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed against him in a petition preferred by the appellant under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and by the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned Family Court, an interim maintenance of a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - was awarded as an interim maintenance assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 20,000/ - per month. The learned counsel further submits that the said order dated 08.07.2010 was challenged by the appellant before this Court in C.R.P. No. 157/2010 and the said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2010 while upholding the order passed by the learned Matrimonial Court. He further submits that in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court it was observed that the appellant had been trying to conceal his correct income from the Court. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant has been taking divergent stands as in his reply to the application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 he had disclosed his monthly income as Rs. 6,000/ - and when his statement under Sec. 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was recorded then he disclosed his income as Rs. 7,200/ - and now before this Court he has taken a stand that he is unemployed and has no source of income. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly urged that the present appeal being based on false and vexatious facts be dismissed with heavy costs.