Rakesh Kumar vs.kiran Verma

Rakesh Kumar vs Kiran Verma

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 10, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1220534

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1220534
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 10, 2019
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar

Respondent

Kiran Verma

Excerpt

.....advocate .....petitioner versus kiran verma .....respondent through: mr. rohit sharma, advocate with respondent in person coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur order (oral) 1. in proceedings under the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as dv act), the court below has directed petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to respondent. the challenge to impugned judgment of 22nd november, 2016 and 2. order of 6th august, 2016 by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that as per the income tax return, the income of ₹28,200/- from other sources, is the annual is submitted that the court below has erred in assessing petitioner’s income at ₹50,000/- and it ought to be assessed at ₹25,000/-. upon hearing, and on perusal of impugned order, i find that the 3. aforesaid plea taken by petitioner is not substantiated. it needs no reiteration that income disclosed in the income tax returns is not a conclusive proof of the actual income earned by a person. otherwise also, income of petitioner and not the monthly income. it crl.m.c. 1041/2017 page 1 of 2 petitioner is a lawyer by profession, who is post-graduate in law and an experienced person.... petitioner is morally and legally bound to support his wife and minor children, who are teenagers.4. during the course of hearing, petitioner’s counsel has informed that petitioner is already paying interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- to respondent but still respondent is insisting upon the arrears of interim maintenance. respondent on instructions submits that 5. respondent is ready to forego the arrears of maintenance, provided petitioner pays the interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month regularly.6. in light of the aforesaid impugned orders are maintained, while relieving the petitioner from paying arrears of interim maintenance.7. terms. this petition and the applications are disposed of in aforesaid learned counsel for january10 2019 v (sunil gaur).....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 10, 2019 * + CRL.M.C. 1041/2017 RAKESH KUMAR Through: Mr. K.B.B. Singh, Advocate .....Petitioner Versus KIRAN VERMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate with respondent in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL) 1. In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), the court below has directed petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to respondent. The challenge to impugned judgment of 22nd November, 2016 and 2. order of 6th August, 2016 by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that as per the income tax return, the income of ₹28,200/- from other sources, is the annual is submitted that the court below has erred in assessing petitioner’s income at ₹50,000/- and it ought to be assessed at ₹25,000/-. Upon hearing, and on perusal of impugned order, I find that the 3. aforesaid plea taken by petitioner is not substantiated. It needs no reiteration that income disclosed in the income tax returns is not a conclusive proof of the actual income earned by a person. Otherwise also, income of petitioner and not the monthly income. It CRL.M.C. 1041/2017 Page 1 of 2 petitioner is a Lawyer by profession, who is post-graduate in Law and an experienced person.... Petitioner

is morally and legally bound to support his wife and minor children, who are teenagers.

4. During the course of hearing, petitioner’s counsel has informed that petitioner is already paying interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- to respondent but still respondent is insisting upon the arrears of interim maintenance. respondent on instructions submits that 5. respondent is ready to forego the arrears of maintenance, provided petitioner pays the interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month regularly.

6. In light of the aforesaid impugned orders are maintained, while relieving the petitioner from paying arrears of interim maintenance.

7. terms. This petition and the applications are disposed of in aforesaid Learned counsel for JANUARY10 2019 v (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE CRL.M.C. 1041/2017 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Rakesh Kumar vs Kiran Verma Same Subject Education