INTHECOURTOFMS.ANURADHASHUKLABHARDWAJ

ASJ02(EAST)KARKARDOOMACOURTS,DELHI

CANo.37/2014

Smt.SwatiKaushikW/oSh.AshwiniSharmaR/oC501,NagarjunaAparments,Mayurkunj,NearChillaRegulatorDelhi110096

.............Appellant

VersusSh.AshwiniSharmaS/oSh.C.PaulSharmaR/oB37,CelApartments,PlotNo.B14,VasundhraEnclaveNewDelhi110096

............Respondent

ORDER

1. BythisorderIshalldisposeoftheappealu/s29D.V.

Actwherebyappellantchallengedtheorderdated22/09/14.

2. Themarriagebetweenthepartiesisadmittedandsois

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page1of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

thebirthofchild. Thepartieshas leveledallegationsandcounter

allegations. The parties filed respective affidavits of incomeand

assestbeforethetrialcourt.Afterconsideringtheprimafaciecase

Ld.TrialCourtheldthattheappellant/wifewasworkingwithTata

SkyLtd.ShehadaMasterDiplomaandshecouldmaintainherself.

The minor child, however, was granted a maintenance of Rs.

15,000/fromthedateofpetition.RespondentwasalsograntedRs.

10,000/ in lieu of expenses for residence. The income of the

respondentwasconsideredasRs.65,000toRs.75,000permonth.

The order has been challenged interalia on the ground that the

appellantisanunemployedladyandhastotakecareofherminor

child. Therespondent and hisfamilymembers hadassetsand

hadhugeincome.Appellantislivingwithherfatherandisdependent

onhim.Theexpenditureofrespondentasperaffidavitismuchmore

than his income which shows that he earns more. He lives

luxuriouslife, maintains driver, servantetc.Therespondenthas

also challenged the order vide separate appeal stating that the

appellantcanmaintainherself.ItwasarguedbytheLd.Counselfor

theappellantthatsheislivingwiththeminorchildseparatelyfrom

therespondent, however, therespondenthasnotpaid a single

pennyfor themaintenanceof minorchilddespite thefilingof the

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page2of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

petitionunderDVActinSeptember2011. Itwasarguedthatthe

though the appellant was working earlier, now she has the

responsibilityoftheminorchild. Theappellantcannotmoveoutof

herhousetotakeupajobleavingtheminorchildbehind.Itwas

arguedthattherespondenttoavoidhisliabilityhastakenpersonal

loans and education loan. As per the records the income of

respondentisabout2lacspermonthsandthewifeandchildare

entitledfor60%oftheincome.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand

arguedthattherespondenthadtoquithisjobduetolitigation.He

wantedtokeepappellantwithhimbutshefiled theDivorce. He

argued that thechild is of 5yearsoldnowand if theappellant

choosesnottoworkfortherestofherlife,therespondentcannotbe

madetopayforherfortherestofherlifedespitethefactthatsheis

educatedwomanwhocanmaintainherself.

4. Ld.Counselfortheappellantrelieduponthejudgment

ofHon'bleDelhiHighCourtin140(2007)DLT16,BharatHegde

Vs.SarojHegdewhereitwasheldthattheapplicant(wife)had

a right to live in a similar life style as she enjoyed in

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page3of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

matrimonialhome. Hehasalsorelieduponsomemorejudgment

whichlaydownmoreorlesssimilarrule,thejudgmentbeingofthe

periodof2005to2009.The lawhaschangedsincethen,bythe

judgmentin In171(2010)DLT644,SanjayBhardwaj&Ors.Vs.

State whereintheHonbleHighCourtheldthatwheretheparties

have equal educational qualification, both must take care of

themselves.

5. Similarjudgments havebeendeliveredbytheHon'ble

High Court over the period. The appellant is contesting that her

husbandearnsalotofmoneyandsheisentitledforashareinit.

Sheherselfcannotworkbecauseshehastotakecareoftheminor

child.Thechildwouldbe5yearsplusasofnowandasarguedby

theLd.Counselfortherespondent,theappellantwillhavetotake

up some work sooner or later, she being an educated woman

having earlier work experience. So far as the minor child is

concernedtherespondentcannotrunawayfromtheliabilitytowards

childeveniftheappellantwhoisthemotherofthechild,isworking

andisindependent.

6. Ld.Counselfortheappellantarguedthattherespondent

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page4of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

earnsmuchmorethanisreflectedfromitsaffidavits. Theadmitted

income of the respondent as of now is Rs. 75,000/. His actual

incomeisamatteroftrial.Iftheappellantprovesthatheisearning

more, she would beentitled for enhancedmaintenancepayable

frombackdate. Atprimafaciestage,respondenthavingadmitted

thatheearnsRs.75,000/, itshallbe takenashisincome.The

orderinsofarasitrelatestothemaintenancegrantedtothechild

atRs.15000/iswithoutanyerror.Thereisnoerrorinthereliefof

residencegrantedto thewifeasRs.10,000/ permonthaswell.

Sincethewifehaspleadedthatshehad toleaveherjobdueto

marriageandbirthofchild,andasofnowsheisunemployed, the

respondent has a liability to provide for her maintenance. This

maintenancehowever, cannot beperpetual asarguedby theLd.

Counselfortherespondent. ThetakeawaysalaryofRs.75,000/

has been admitted by the respondent. He is already paying Rs.

10,000/ towards residence to the appellant. He shall pay an

additional amount of Rs. 10,000/ per month to the wife. This

maintenancehowever,shallbeforrestrictedperiodi.e.foroneyear

fromthedateofthisorder.Theappellantshallduringthisperiodof

one year look for a job and start an independent life. After the

conclusionofoneyear,respondentshallnotpaythemaintenance

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page5of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

oftheappellant.Restoftheorderremainsunaltered.Theorderis

modifiedinaboveterms.

7. TCRbesentbackalongwithcopyofthisorder.Appeal

filebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.

Announcedintheopencourton12/03/2015 (ANURADHASHUKLABHARDWAJ)

ASJ02,(EAST)KKDCOURTS/DELHI

Crl.(A)No.37/2014 Page6of6 SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma