J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CM APPL. 41759/2019 (Condonation of delay)

1. The present Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 9 days’ delay in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the delay of 9 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of.

MAT. APP. (F.C.) 243/2019

4. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband against the Order dated

30.07.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-East, Saket, New Delhi, whereby the Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) filed by the respondent/wife was allowed thereby granting her interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month.

5. The facts in brief are that the appellant/husband filed the Divorce Petition bearing HMA No. 817/2015 under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 on 07.08.2015, against the respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the Divorce Petition, the respondent/wife filed an Application under Section 24 of HMA, 1955 seeking interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month along with Rs. 75,000/- towards litigation expenses.

6. The respondent/wife in her Application under Section 24 of HMA, 1955 had asserted that she had no source of income to maintain herself as well as minor child and she was living at the mercy of her old-age widowed mother.

7. The respondent/wife asserted that the appellant/husband was a Chartered Accountant and was working as a Manager Taxation with M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and getting a salary of Rs. 75,000/- per month. He also owns moveable and immoveable properties in Faridabad and Delhi. He also has huge amounts in his bank account, in addition to FDRs and Insurance Policies. The appellant/husband has no other responsibility, except to maintain the respondent/wife and their son which he is deliberately avoiding. Hence, the respondent/wife claimed interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month from the appellant/husband.

8. The appellant/husband contested the said Application by asserting that the respondent/wife herself had left the matrimonial home on 10.01.2016 and had filed a complaint making false allegations in CAW Cell, Seemapuri on 22.01.2016.

9. The appellant/husband further claimed that the respondent/wife was a young lady of 34 years of age and was well educated, possessing a degree of Master of Arts in Hindi. She has work experience in different professions and had worked as a Tutor, Teacher, Assistant Accountant and had even run a Restaurant. The respondent/wife in association with her brother opened a Restaurant in the name of “Goverdhan Catering” at Preet Vihar. Thus, the respondent/wife is capable of working and cannot be allowed to sit idle only to claim maintenance from him.

10. It was further asserted that the respondent/wife had failed to disclose her true income and had not filed the details of her bank account. The respondent/wife was thus, not entitled to any interim maintenance.

11. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court after considering the rival assertions observed that merely because the respondent/wife was a Post-graduate in Hindi and had some past work experience, she cannot be denied maintenance. The gross salary of Rs. 99,000/- per month of the appellant/husband was considered and it was held that his net payable income was Rs. 75,000/- per month. Considering that the respondent/wife was also maintaining the minor child and was bearing all his expenses, the interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month was allowed w.e.f. the date of filing of the Application till December, 2017. Further, the enhanced amount of Rs. 30,000/- per mont