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
