NIL Interim maintenance to employed woman. No residence as well. DV case. Delhi HC

Woman employed in Indian Airlines and also living separately on her own accord file DV case seeking direction for accommodation and Rs 15000 p.m. as interim maintenance. Lower courts deny maintenance. She appeals to HC and Hon Dhingra dismisses the case


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.MC No. 3325/2010

KAVERI                                                           ….. Petitioner
Through Ms. Uma, Advocate

versus

Neel Sagar & Anr.                                                 ….. Respondents

CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

O R D E R (ORAL)

25.10.2010

By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order dated 25th May, 2010 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 28th August, 2009 of learned MM was dismissed.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The relevant facts show that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking restraint order against the respondents and seeking direction to provide her residential accommodation and to pay sum of Rs.15000/- pm as interim maintenance. The respondents in this case were mother and brothers of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employed woman, has been working with Indian Airlines in store department and living separately from her brothers and mother admittedly since 2002; although the respondents alleged that she was living separately since 1999. Both the Courts below had come to the conclusion that interim relief either of separate residence or claiming amount from brothers or mother could not be granted in her favour under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act since it was not the claim of the petitioner that she was not able to maintain herself rather she had claimed she had spent Rs.1 lac in construction of first floor of the house where respondents no. 1 & 2 were residing. The Courts below came to the conclusion that petitioner being employed and living separate and being a major having her own independent source of income was not entitled to relief. The facts that the petitioner is employed and has been living separate and leading an independent life are undisputed facts. I find no ground to interfere with the orders of the Courts below in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J

OCTOBER 25, 2010

acm

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s