FAO (OS) 147/2013

Page 1 of 3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

FAO (OS) No.147/2013

AVNITA AHLUWALIA & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Mr. Kshitij Kumar

& Mr. Deepak Chanderpal, Advs.

versus

VIKAAS AHLUWALIA

..... Respondent

Through:

Nemo

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

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

2013:DHC:1434-DB

FAO (OS) 147/2013

Page 2 of 3

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also not withdrawn by the appellants.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.

2013:DHC:1434-DB

FAO (OS) 147/2013

Page 3 of 3

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.

INDERMEE