SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram vs . Mamta @ Anita & Others on 6 February, 2019

CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CA/48/18
CNR No: DLNE01­005176­2018

In the matter of;

Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram
S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan
R/o House No.91B, Gali No.4,
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi­110094 ….. Appellant

Versus

1. Mamta @ Anita
W/o Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram

2. Kumari Neeraj

3. Kumari Davika

4. Kumari Harshita

Respondent no.2 to 4 are
Daughters of Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram

All Resident of House No.91B, Gali No.4,
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi­110094
….. Respondents

Page No. 1 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

Date of Institution : 14­12­2018
Reserved for order on : 02­02­2019
Order announced on : 06­02­2019

ORDER

1. This is an Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be

referred as “the Act”) against the order dt.14­11­2018 passed by

learned MM, Mahila Court, North East District, Karkardooma Courts,

Delhi whereby the Trial Court has directed the appellant to pay

interim maintenance of Rs.2,400/­ (Two Thousand Four Hundred) per

month i.e. Rs.800/­ (Eight Hundred) per month each to respondent

no.2 to 4 herein from the date of filing the petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

meticulously perused the record of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that entire

family is residing together and the appellant is taking full care of the

children and there is no need for quantifying the amount of

maintenance to be fixed for the children and has prayed that appeal

Page No. 2 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has

prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

5. At the outset, it is pointed out that relationship of appellant

and respondent no.1 as husband and wife is not in dispute. It is also

not in dispute that respondent no.2 to 4 are their children born out of

their wedlock.

6. On perusal of impugned order, it is found out that as per

respective income affidavits filed by the parties, wife has stated that

her income is Rs.5,000/­ (Five Thousand) per month from stitching

work whereas husband has stated that his income is Rs.4,000/­ (Four

Thousand) per month.

7. As far as income of husband is concerned, there is

absolutely no ground to believe that he may be earning only

Rs.4,000/­ (Four Thousand) per month for the simple reason that it is

even below the Minimum Wages Act. Even if we apply Minimum

Wages Act, he would be earning an amount closer to Rs.14,000/­

Page No. 3 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

(Fourteen Thousand) per month.

8. The wife could not establish if her husband is earning

more than the said amount from any other source except making an

averment that he is doing hosiery work and earns about Rs.35,000/­

per month. No supporting or corroborating document whatsoever has

been placed on record by wife to lend assurance to the fact if he is

doing hosiery work and earns Rs.35,000/­ per month. Therefore,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter, the income

of appellant is assessed at Rs.14,000/­ (Fourteen Thousand) per month

as per Minimum Wages Act.

9. Now coming on to the income of wife, she has admitted

that she is earning Rs.5,000/­ (Five Thousand) per month from her

stitching work though appellant/ husband has pointed out that his wife

is earning Rs.40,000/­ (Forty Thousand) per month from stitching

work, yet, he has miserably failed to show any document in order to

establish the fact if his wife is earning Rs.40,000/­ (Forty Thousand)

per month from the said work. No other supporting or corroborating

Page No. 4 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

document whatsoever has been placed on record by the husband to

show if his wife is earning Rs.40,000/­ per month.

10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for

appellant has stressed that since all the children along with wife are

residing under the same roof and appellant is taking full care of all the

children, therefore, no quantifying amount can be fixed separately for

the children.

11. There is no strength in the submission made by learned

counsel for appellant for the simple reason that it is the legal right of

the children to claim maintenance from their parents which should

cater to their day to day needs and nurturing. Children also have equal

stake in the maintenance from the earning of their parents. It is a

settled law that if both the parents are earning, then they should share

the burden of their children equally.

12. In the present case, it is observed that appellant/husband is

earning more than his wife, therefore, he is primarily responsible for

the maintenance and fulfilling the needs of the children. There is

Page No. 5 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

absolutely no bar under the law for not quantifying the maintenance

amount payable to the children, even if they are residing with their

father for the simple reason that the Court may monitor the actual

amount paid to the children.

13. It is absolutely possible that father may not maintain the

children as per law even though the children are residing with him

under the same roof. In such circumstances, quantifying their

maintenance is absolutely essential. Needless to say that the children

need expenses for their food, clothing, education, medicine etc. and

they have to be taken care of properly primarily by the father.

14. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata Others

reported in 2002 (5SCC) 422 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has

held as follows;

“Applying the principle of the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for
maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is
recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance

Page No. 6 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/ order
passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed
by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section
125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the view
that all facts and in the circumstances of the case, no interference
with the impugned judgment /order of the High Court is called for.”

15. From the above, it is clear that a female child is entitled to

maintenance till the time she gets married even if she is a major.

16. The Trial Court had fixed interim maintenance of Rs.800/­

(Eight Hundred) per month each to the children of the appellant.

17. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion,

respondent no.2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.2,400/­ (Two Thousand Four

Hundred) per month i.e. Rs.800/­ (Eight Hundred) per month each

from the appellant from the date of filing of the petition till the time

respondent no.2 to 4 are legally entitled to receive the maintenance

amount.

18. The appellant shall also pay to the respondents an amount

of Rs.5,000/­ (Five Thousand) towards the legal expenses.

Page No. 7 /8
CA/48/18
Suresh Kumar @ Yad Ram Vs. Mamta @ Anita others

19. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the

appellant shall clear the arrears of maintenance within six months

from the date of the order and shall continue to pay the maintenance

as observed herein above.

20. It is made clear that the amount awarded herein shall be

adjustable against the amount awarded in any other proceedings

towards their maintenance.

21. It is made clear that monthly payment shall be made on or

before 10th day of each English calendar month or may be deposited

directly in the bank account of the respondent.

22. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

23. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.

24. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally signed by
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DEEPAK JAGOTRA

ON 06th FEBRUARY, 2019 DEEPAK Location:
KARKARDOOMA
JAGOTRA COURTS, DELHI
Date: 2019.02.06
15:22:07 +0530

(DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Page No. 8 /8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation