JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J.

CM No.4492/2013 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subjection to just exceptions.

FAO (OS) No.147/2013

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2013 wherein on the interim application filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) being the wife and the minor daughter of the respondent, had been granted maintenance @ Rs.75,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2013 as also certain other benefits. These benefits included an air-conditioned car and a driver along with its running and maintenance expenses subject to a maximum of 250 litres of petrol/diesel per month; the school fee including school books and school dress of their minor daughter as also excursion or other activity expenses that she may undertake; the medical expenses of both the appellants were also to be reimbursed by the respondent.

3. The appellants are aggrieved by this interim arrangement. Their submission is that the day to day expenses of the appellants are much more and keeping in view the status of the respondent who is a whole time Director in a reputed contractual company, the aforenoted rate of maintenance is liable to be enhanced.

4. Record shows that the learned Single Judge has delved into detail into the family background of the parties. It has been noted that appellant No. 2 and the respondent, after their marriage, were living separately from the parents of the respondent at Jalvayu Vihar, Noida as the marriage of the parties was against their wishes. It was only when appellant No. 2 conceived that the parties started living with the family of the respondent. It has been noted that as far back as on 20.12.2010, the respondent had offered to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the appellants as an interim measure but the same had not been accepted. It has also been noted that vide order dated 25.04.2011, the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as monthly expenses in the Guardianship Court totaling a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- but that amount was also not withdrawn by the appellants. The appellants are presently living in Gujrat Vihar, Delhi which is the parental house of appellant No. 2. The child of the parties is studying at Delhi Public School, Noida.

5. Documentary evidence had been filed by the respective parties which included the income tax returns of the respondent to establish his income which averments had been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It may be noted that the impugned order has only made an interim arrangement pending trial; this is only on a prima-facie view of the matter. The parties are yet to go to trial and it is for the appellants to establish their case and for the respondent to refute it which can only be done during the course of trial.

6. The fact that the married couple was living at Jalvayu Vihar, Noida immediately after their marriage and presently also the appellants are living in a 150 square yards house owned by the parents of appellant No. 2 is also a reflection of the status of the parties. All relevant factors were considered and taken into account by the learned Single Judge. This exercise of his discretionary power was fair.

7. Impugned order in this background calls for no interference. Appeal is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.