SURYASNATA DAS AND ANOTHER Vs. NISHIKANT DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by District Judge, Family Court Gurgaon who allowed Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance to the child while the prayer for maintenance to the wife was declined.

(2.) Few facts are necessary to be delineated.

(3.) The petitioner was married to Suryasnata Das in January 2001. A child was born to them in 2009. Differences cropped up after about 8 years of their marriage. The marriage had taken place at Cuttack in Orissa. The parties moved to Bhubaneswar. The wife returned to Gurgaon and took up a job with Quest Diagnostic Private Limited Gurgaon in April 2011. She brought her daughter along and started living with her mother. The child was admitted in a school in Gurgaon. The petitioner besides making allegations regrading demand of dowry and the harassment pleaded that the husband had neglected to maintain them since March 2011. The wife had claimed that she was earning a salary of Rs. 65,000/- per month and she was taking care of her mother and the minor daughter and was paying Rs. 24,000/- as rent for the accommodation and the husband was highly educated and was Director with Global Markets Standard Chartered Bank in Mumbai and his annual income was Rs. 2.5 crores and was maintaining two Cars and claimed Rs. 5 lacs per month as maintenance for the petitioners and Rs. 2.5 lacs as litigation expenses. The husband took the plea that the wife had knowingly and willingly deprived him of the company of his child. He denied all the allegations levelled against him. He admitted that he was earning Rs. 5 lacs per month as salary. He had also pleaded that he was paying EMIs of properties in Mumbai besides Society maintenance charges. It was pleaded that he had purchased properties in Mumbai and Bhubaneswar in the joint name of deponent and petitioner No. 1 and the properties stand registered in joint names and they were purchased entirely out of the earnings of the Deponent. In the affidavit filed before this Court it was also mentioned that he had taken child plan in April 2012 and when their child would complete the age of 18, the insurer would pay Rs. 48 lacs to the child on attaining the majority and he was paying annual premium of Rs. 3.4 lacs. It was pleaded that he was spending approximately Rs. 1.54 lacs on expenses that should have been shared jointly by him and petitioner No. 1. He had also attached copy of his Salary Slip, Form 16 and Registration of his car.