INTHECOURTOFMS.

ANURADHASHUKLABHARDWAJ
ASJ02(EAST)KARKARDOOMACOURTS,DELHI
CANo.37/2014
Smt.SwatiKaushik
W/oSh.AshwiniSharma
R/oC501,NagarjunaAparments,
Mayurkunj,NearChillaRegulator
Delhi110096
.............Appellant
Versus
Sh.AshwiniSharma
S/oSh.C.PaulSharma
R/oB37,CelApartments,
PlotNo.B14,VasundhraEnclave
NewDelhi110096
............Respondent
ORDER
1.

BythisorderIshalldisposeoftheappealu/s29D.V.

Actwherebyappellantchallengedtheorderdated22/09/14.

2.

Crl.(A)No.37/2014

Themarriagebetweenthepartiesisadmittedandsois

Page1of6

SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

thebirthofchild. Thepartieshas leveledallegationsandcounter

allegations. The parties filed respective affidavits of income and
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
the respondent, however, the respondent has not paid a single
penny forthemaintenanceofminorchilddespitethefilingofthe

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
wantedtokeepappellantwithhimbutshefiledtheDivorce. He
argued that the child is of 5 years old now and if the appellant
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.
Crl.(A)No.37/2014

Ld.Counselfortheappellantarguedthattherespondent
Page4of6

SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma

earnsmuchmorethanisreflectedfromitsaffidavits.Theadmitted
income of the respondent as of now is Rs. 75,000/. His actual
incomeisamatteroftrial.Iftheappellantprovesthatheisearning
more, she would be entitled for enhanced maintenance payable
frombackdate. Atprimafaciestage,respondenthavingadmitted
thatheearnsRs.75,000/, itshallbe takenashisincome.The
orderinsofarasitrelatestothemaintenancegrantedtothechild
atRs.15000/iswithoutanyerror.Thereisnoerrorinthereliefof
residencegranted to thewife as Rs.10,000/ per monthas well.
Sincethewifehaspleadedthatshehad toleaveherjobdueto
marriageandbirthofchild,andasofnowsheisunemployed, the
respondent has a liability to provide for her maintenance. This
maintenance however, cannot be perpetual as argued by the Ld.
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.

Announcedintheopen
courton12/03/2015
(ANURADHASHUKLABHARDWAJ)
ASJ02,(EAST)KKDCOURTS/DELHI

Crl.(A)No.37/2014

Page6of6

SwatiKaushikVs.AshwaniSharma