Full Judgment Text
$~R-211
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 03, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1612/2014
SACHIN JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Pandit & Mr. Aakar
Bhardwaj, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Amit Rao & Mr.
N.K.Chaudhary, Advocates for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
th
Act, 2005 , trial court vide order of 20 September, 2013 has fixed the
interim maintenance @ 8,000/- p.m. for respondent-wife and the child
`
aged about 6 years, who is said to be studying in Class-I. Revisional
th
Court vide impugned order of 14 March, 2014 has maintained the
aforesaid trial court’s order by observing that petitioner herein has not
placed any document showing that he had resigned from service nor he
has placed on record any salary certificate. However, it is noticed in the
impugned order that petitioner’s bank statement reveals that his salary
was around ` 11,000/- p.m. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner
had drawn the attention of this Court to petitioner’s salary slip as well as
resignation letter and had submitted that the gross salary of petitioner was
Crl.M.C.No.1612/2014 Page 1
` 11,000/- p.m. and petitioner had to resign due to matrimonial dispute.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that
grant of interim maintenance ought to be reasonable one.
Learned counsel for respondent-wife had supported the impugned
orders and had submitted that there is no illegality in the orders as
petitioner is an able bodied person, who is duty bound to maintain
respondent-wife and child.
Upon hearing and having considered the submissions advanced by
both the sides and on perusal of the impugned orders and the material on
record, I find that the interim maintenance assessed by the Courts below
appears to be on higher side. There is no strict formula to award a
particular percentage of the husband’s income and each case must be
determined according to its own circumstances. The law has to operate in
a flexible and elastic manner to do complete justice between the parties.
Even if it is taken that the earning capacity of petitioner is about
11,000/- p.m., this Court is of the considered opinion that 50% of the
`
monthly income would be a reasonable amount to be awarded to the
respondent-wife and minor child.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned orders are
modified to the extent that petitioner shall pay monthly maintenance of
` 5,500/- to respondent-wife and minor child from the date of application.
This petition is accordingly disposed of while refraining to
comment upon merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.1612/2014 Page 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 03, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 1612/2014
SACHIN JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Pandit & Mr. Aakar
Bhardwaj, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Amit Rao & Mr.
N.K.Chaudhary, Advocates for
Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
th
Act, 2005 , trial court vide order of 20 September, 2013 has fixed the
interim maintenance @ 8,000/- p.m. for respondent-wife and the child
`
aged about 6 years, who is said to be studying in Class-I. Revisional
th
Court vide impugned order of 14 March, 2014 has maintained the
aforesaid trial court’s order by observing that petitioner herein has not
placed any document showing that he had resigned from service nor he
has placed on record any salary certificate. However, it is noticed in the
impugned order that petitioner’s bank statement reveals that his salary
was around ` 11,000/- p.m. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner
had drawn the attention of this Court to petitioner’s salary slip as well as
resignation letter and had submitted that the gross salary of petitioner was
Crl.M.C.No.1612/2014 Page 1
` 11,000/- p.m. and petitioner had to resign due to matrimonial dispute.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that
grant of interim maintenance ought to be reasonable one.
Learned counsel for respondent-wife had supported the impugned
orders and had submitted that there is no illegality in the orders as
petitioner is an able bodied person, who is duty bound to maintain
respondent-wife and child.
Upon hearing and having considered the submissions advanced by
both the sides and on perusal of the impugned orders and the material on
record, I find that the interim maintenance assessed by the Courts below
appears to be on higher side. There is no strict formula to award a
particular percentage of the husband’s income and each case must be
determined according to its own circumstances. The law has to operate in
a flexible and elastic manner to do complete justice between the parties.
Even if it is taken that the earning capacity of petitioner is about
11,000/- p.m., this Court is of the considered opinion that 50% of the
`
monthly income would be a reasonable amount to be awarded to the
respondent-wife and minor child.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned orders are
modified to the extent that petitioner shall pay monthly maintenance of
` 5,500/- to respondent-wife and minor child from the date of application.
This petition is accordingly disposed of while refraining to
comment upon merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.1612/2014 Page 2