Manoj Raturi v. The State & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: January 27, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 309/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.1197-98/2015 MANOJ RATURI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Advocate versus THE STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

% (ORAL) In proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide order of 30th October, 2014, petitioner has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondentwife and her child. At the hearing, challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the income of petitioner was earlier at `6,000/- per month and at present, petitioner is unemployed and respondent No.2-wife is earning and so, grant of interim maintenance to respondents No. 2 & 3 is unjustified.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order as well as trial Crl.M.C.No.309/2015

court's order of 26th November, 2013, I find that the case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner-husband is working as Administrative Manager and is earning `25,000/- per month whereas case of petitioner is that he is earning `6,000/- per month only and therefore, grant of interim maintenance to respondents 2 & 3 is unjustified, as petitioner is unemployed now.

Petitioner is stated to be a graduate who is an able bodied person and his income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, which in the instant case would come to more than `8,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 is well justified. Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2015 r Crl.M.C.No.309/2015