GAGAN vs KAVITA
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: December 04, 2023
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 315/2023 & CM APPLs. 55497-55498/2023, 55501/2023
GAGAN ….. Appellant
Through: Ms. Juhi Arora, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Appellant-in-person.
versus
KAVITA ….. Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed against order dated June 01, 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge, while allowing the application filed by the respondent herein, has in paragraph 12 granted an amount of Rs. 13,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance to the respondent and the minor daughter from the date of filing of the application.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant primarily is, the respondent though educated, is sitting idle at home and as such, liability cannot be vested on the respondent. She also submits, even the appellant is only a graduate and has no employment, because of which, he is unable to pay the maintenance, as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Additionally, she submits that the appellant is suffering from kidney ailment and requires money for its treatment.
3. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, for the reason, the findings on fact of the learned Judge, Family Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order are following:
10. Qua the income of the husband, it is an admitted position that he is working as a teacher with Freedom Employability Academy, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. While the wife has alleged that he is drawing a salary of Rs. 60.000/- per month, the husband has disclosed his salary as Rs. 25,000/- per month. He has placed on record his salary slips for the months of October, 2022 to December, 2022 and February, 2023 to March, 2023, which shows that after deduction of provident fund, his net salary is Rs. 27,000/- per month approximately. Though the wife has asserted that the husband is also deriving the rental income of Rs. 50,000/- per month from agricultural land, self acquired house and shop but the said assertion has remained vacuous in as much ‘as the address and location of the alleged properties have not been disclosed by her. With regard to his liability to repay the loan amount of Rs. 3 lac, the husband has placed on record copy of two loans agreements dated 18.06.2021 and 1 1. 07.2021 stated to have been executed between him and one Surender Babu for the amounts of Rs. 1,50,000/- each allegedly borrowed by him to meet the expenses of his liver and kidney operation. It is pertinent to observe that the final bill dated 11.08.2021 raised by the Holy Family Hospital, which has also been placed on record by the husband, shows that the same was for an amount of Rs. 9177/- only.
4. We have also asked the appellant, who is present in person, as to when did he complete his graduation, he said, it was in the year 2015 and that too in English subject. Prior to that, he was employed in an International NGO and was undertaking tuitions in English.
5. We find that appellant is a young person of 37 years of age and able bodied, and as such he can earn and pay the maintenance as has been directed by the Family Court.
6. That apart, we find that learned Judge, Family Court has quantified the total income of the appellant as Rs. 27,000/- per month approximately which has some justification. Based on such finding, he has granted Rs.13,000/- per month to the respondent and minor daughter.
7. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference.
8. The appeal is dismissed. All pending applications have become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
DECEMBER 04, 2023/R
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 315/2023 Page 3 of 3