Back
Karnataka High Court
JASBIR KAUR SEHGAL - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN - Respondent
Decided On : 08-27-97
C.A. : 5803 of 1997
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - 1955 - Summary: The court discussed the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and emphasized that the wife's right to claim maintenance includes her own maintenance and that of her daughter. The court considered the status of the parties, their respective needs, and the husband's capacity to pay in fixing the maintenance amount. It held that the maintenance should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort and not be excessive or extortionate.
Fact of the Case:
The wife appealed against the judgment awarding her maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband had filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, and the High Court had enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 1500 per month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's right to claim maintenance includes her own maintenance and that of her daughter. It emphasized that the maintenance amount should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort and not be excessive or extortionate.
Issues: The issues included the determination of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the discretion of the court in granting maintenance from a specific date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the status of the parties, their respective needs, and the husband's capacity to pay in fixing the maintenance amount. It also emphasized the discretion of the court in granting maintenance from a specific date, considering multiple circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, modified the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed the maintenance pendente lite to be payable from the date of the impugned order of the High Court. It ordered all arrears of maintenance to be paid within a period of two months from the date of the judgment and then regularly every month.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main legal issue concerns the appropriate amount of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which should enable the wife to live in reasonable comfort without being excessive or extortionate [judgement_subject].
The court emphasized that the right to claim maintenance includes not only the wife's own maintenance but also that of her children or dependents, such as unmarried daughters, who are unable to maintain themselves [judgement_act_referred].
The court considered the financial status, needs, and capacity to pay of the husband, along with the wife's circumstances, including her lack of income and her role in maintaining her unmarried daughter, to determine the maintenance amount [judgement_subject].
The court held that the maintenance should be payable from the date of the order or judgment, with discretion exercised based on circumstances such as conduct, the timing of filings, and the parties' honesty about their income and assets (!) .
The court fixed the maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 5000 per month, considering the parties' status and the facts of the case, and ordered arrears to be paid within two months, thereafter to be paid regularly every month (!) .
The court observed that the husband's income was likely higher than declared, noting attempts to conceal assets and income, and estimated his annual income at around Rs. 2,40,000 or approximately Rs. 20,000 per month (!) .
The court recognized the husband's income from various sources, including salary, interest, and other assets, but noted incomplete disclosures and a lack of supporting documentation, leading to an inference of concealment (!) .
The wife was found to have no independent income and was living in a Gurdwara for safety. Her grievance was primarily about the amount of maintenance awarded, which she considered insufficient (!) .
The court clarified that maintenance amounts are determined based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, balancing the need for the wife to live reasonably comfortably and the husband's capacity to pay, without being excessive (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the original maintenance order was modified to reflect the new amount and the date from which it is payable, which is the date of the High Court's impugned order (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THIS is a wife's appeal against the judgment dated 14. 10. 1996 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. She is aggrieved by the impugned judgment under which she was awarded maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") at the rate of Rs. 1500 per month. On an application filed by the wife in the Trial Court in proceeding for divorce initiated by her husband. Respondent 3 herein, she was awarded Rs. 2500 (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as expenses of litigation and maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month. Her revision before the District Judge, Dehradun against this order was dismissed. She further filed Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 1500 per month.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in this appeal are respectively the District judge, Dehradun and the Additional Civil Judge (llnd ). Dehradun who are described as pro forma respondents. It is not proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the courts as respondents and Respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.
( 4 ) THE parties were married on 2. 10. 1963. The husband at that time was an army officer. He retired as Lt. Colonel on 10. 8. 1986. On 28. 9. 1989 he filed a petition for divorce against his wife under section 13 of the Act on the alleged grounds of cruelty and desertion. He stated that within two years of the marriage his wife started creating problems for him and she persisted in her behaviour right till the year 1989. In this span of 26 years in their married life, they have become the parents of four children, two sons and two daughters. The eldest daughter who is 34 years old and unmarried is living with her mother who maintains her. The second child is a son who is working with Mukul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly salary of Rs. 7500 per month and is living in a house in Safdarjung enclave in Dew Delhi. The third child is a daughter aged 26 years. She is also unmarried and unemployed and is living with the father. The fourth child is a son of 20 years of age, he is unemployed and had studied up to 11th class. The husband says that being the head of the family he is to maintain two sons and a daughter as they are dependent on him. His claim is that he is presently having a meagre salary of Rs. 5000 per month and is employed as a consultant/advisor with M/s Mukul International Private Limited. Both Mukul Overseas (P) Ltd and Mukul International (P) Ltd belong to the same group.
( 5 ) AFTER retirement from the army, the respondent husband joined the Oil and Natural Gas Commissioner (ONGC) as a Director and was posted at Dehradun. He retired from that post on 21. 8. 1995. Thereafter from 1. 1. 1996 the husband is working with M/s Mukul international Pvt. Ltd as aforesaid. After deduction of income tax at source, the husband says he is getting an amount of Rs. 4700 per month. The husband admits that he has a house to NOIDA which was on rent with the army and lease was terminated by letter dated 2. 1. 1996 from the Ministry of Defence. He says repairs are being carried on in the house and at present he is living with his eldest son in his house. He further says he is not getting any pension as on his permanent absorption in ONGC he had opted to receive lump sum amount in lieu of pension and pro rata gratuity amounting to rs. 2,60,456. In addition the husband also received an amount of rs. 55,775 on account of DCR Gratuity. The husband has also filed his computation of taxable income for the Assessment Years 1992- 93, 1995-96 and 1996-97. He has though not filed any assessment order. Since he retired from ONGC in August 1995 it would be appropriate to see his computation of taxable income for the year ending 31. 3. 1995. His gross salary income is Rs. 1,88,281 and after
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
