ANIRUDH MISHRA Vs. INDU MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has assailed the order dated 26th Feb., 2016 passed by the Family Court, Rohini Courts, North-West granting the application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-wife seeking interim maintenance. The parties to the instant case were married on 14th Feb., 2013 and there is no issue from the wedlock. It was urged that the respondent was unemployed. The petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the HMA was filed by the appellant-husband in Aug., 2014. The application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed on 27th Oct., 2014 inter alia on the allegations that the respondent-wife had no source of income and that the appellant-husband was giving tuitions and earning more than Rs. 1 lakh per month. The respondent had claimed maintenance @ Rs. 40,000.00 per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00. The appellant had disputed the respondent’s claim of his income and claimed that he was only earning sum of about Rs. 10,000.00 from tuitions. He had admitted that he was owning a Swift car which he has claimed to have purchased on loan from Axis Bank; one Saving Bank Account; one mobile phone; a telephone and one HP Laptop (purchased on loan from Bajaj Allianz Ltd.). On a consideration of the materials placed before the court, the learned Trial Judge was compelled to deduce the earnings of the appellant from his expenditure. For expediency, we extract hereunder the analysis of the learned Judge so far as the income and expenditure of the appellant is concerned:-

(2.) It was contended before the Family Court that the respondent was gainfully employed with the NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi. An office order dated 12th June, 2015 was placed before the learned Trial Judge in this regard. The same employment order has been asserted to submit that the respondent is gainfully employed. This office order dated 12th June, 2015 clearly states that the respondent was employed on contractual basis for the period of six months with effect from 6th April, 2015 at a salary of Rs. 20,347/-. While passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has clearly directed that the appellant would not be entitled to maintenance for this period as June, 2015 to Dec., 2015 as well as further period when she remains in employment and earned more than @ Rs. 15,000.00 per month .

(3.) There is no other document evidencing that the respondent was gainfully employed or is gainfully employed for any other period. The orders passed by the learned Family Judge carefully protect all rights of the appellant so far as an unwarranted claim of maintenance is concerned for periods when the respondent may be employed.