IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.09.2013
SMT SHAKUNTALA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Adv.
SHIVJI ….. Respondent
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
* CRL.M.A. No.13415/2013 (exemption) Exemption as prayed is allowed, theme to only exceptions. Application stands likely of.
CRL.M.A. No.13416/2013 (condonation of delay) There is a check of 21 days in refiling a appeal. In perspective of a logic given, check in refiling a interest is condoned.
Application stands likely of.
1. The plea has been done to sequence antiquated 15.4.2013 upheld by a schooled Family Court Judge, Delhi whereby upkeep @ `3,000/- p.m. has been awarded to a petitioner/wife in a record underneath Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. The parties were married to any other on 17.5.1995 during Delhi. After marriage, they lived together as father and wife. No child is innate from their wedlock. Petitioner/wife in her focus underneath Section 125 Cr.P.C. had purported that she was not treated scrupulously in a matrimonial home and was incited out. Thereafter, on 23.5.2009 she had filed a petition underneath Section 125 Cr.P.C. for a extend of upkeep to her. The pronounced petition was contested by a respondent/husband who is vital in Bihar and operative in Railways. Respondent denied carrying treated a mother with cruelty as was purported by her. He certified that he was operative in Railways.
3. After execution of pleadings, a following issues were framed in a matter:-
“1. Whether a postulant is entitled for upkeep from a respondent, if so, to what amount? OPP
4. In support of her case, postulant had examined herself as PW1 and respondent had examined himself as RW2. The box of postulant is that respondent’s income is `14,000/- p.m. In a evidence, a postulant has constructed a income trip Ex.PW1/1 of respondent as per that a sum income of postulant for a month of January-February 2009 was `10,314/-. The schooled Judge, Family Court while examining a justification has remarkable that respondent did not cranky inspect on aforesaid aspect of a matter.
Accordingly, a schooled Judge, Family Court has taken a income of `14,000/- p.m. as a income of a respondent/husband as is purported by petitioner/wife and out of that `3,000/- p.m. has been awarded to a petitioner/wife. In a justification of respondent, it has also come that a respondent has a guilt of his aged aged father who is contingent on him. The same is not challenged in a cross-examination. Considering a element on record, schooled Family Judge has postulated upkeep @ `3,000/- per month to petitioner/wife.
5. Aggrieved with a same, a benefaction petition is filed.
6. The protest of a petitioner/wife is that upkeep @ `3,000/- per month awarded to a petitioner/wife is on reduce side and a petitioner/wife is entitled to most some-more amount.
7. we have listened warn for a postulant and left by a element placed on record.
8. No element is placed on record by a petitioner/wife that a income of a respondent/husband is most some-more or that a father of respondent is not contingent on him. Even a income certificate on record Ex.PW1/1 shows obtuse income. However, schooled Judge, Family Court has taken income of father as `14,000/- p.m. as was a box of postulant before a Family Court. Even before this justice zero is placed on record to justify that income of father is some-more than `14,000/- p.m. or that detached from income he has any other income as is alleged. The applicable anticipating of schooled Judge, Family Court is as under:-
“24. As regards means and income of a respondent, as per a box of a petitioner, respondent is operative in Railways and removing a sum income of about Rs.14,000/- per month. The postulant has valid a income of a respondent by approach of income trip that is Ex.PW-1/1 that shows a sum income of a respondent for a month of January-February, 2009 as Rs.10,314/-. No doubt in a interrogate has been asked from a postulant in this regard.”
The commentary given in impugned sequence by a schooled Judge, Family Court are formed on justification on record. No illegality is seen in a same that calls for division of this justice in practice of the revisional jurisdiction.
VEENA BIRBAL, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2013