Interim maintenance under the Special Marriage Act should reflect the wife's status during marriage and be based on a careful assessment of financial disclosures.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1. The present revision application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order being no. 28 dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore in connection with Misc. Case No. 230 of 2020 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 3004 of 2018.

Background:

2. The said Matrimonial Suit being no. 3004 of 2018 was instituted at the behest of the petitioner herein/husband against respondent herein/wife under Section 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1954) with a prayer for a decree of divorce thereby dissolving the marriage by and between the parties which was solemnized on 20.01.2015 under the Special Marriage Act.

3. In the said suit the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 36 for alimony pendente lite praying for a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month which was duly objected by the petitioner herein. Upon perusal of the pleadings exchanged, the Trial Court directed the parties to file an affidavit-of-assets in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Accordingly, both the parties filed their respective affidavits and after thorough perusal, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to hold that the respondent herein/wife is entitled to receive Rs. 35,000/- as alimony pendente lite per month and in addition to that she will get Rs. 30,000/- lumpsum as litigation cost.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred this application by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments advanced:

5. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner/husband by relying on the affidavit of assets filed by the respondent/wife has submitted that the opposite party could only justify claim of Rs. 20,000/- per month against her actual claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite. Therefore, the glaring inconsistency in the claims set forth in the petition and affidavit of assets would make it crystal clear that the claim made by the respondent/wife in the application under Section 36 of the Act of 1954 is absolutely frivolous and untrue. It is only made with an ulterior motive to extort money from the petitioner.

6. Mr. Chaturvedi has further contended that the demand of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- as maintenance for her mother is completely untenable as she has an independent source of income of her own and moreso Section 36 of the Act of 1954 only specifies that the spouse can claim for her own maintenance and not on account of her mother.

7. Before parting with, Mr. Chaturvedi has alleged that the respondent/wife has completely suppressed the fact that she is gainfully employed since the year 2019 and has an approximate income of Rs. 25,000/- per month which mixed the order impugned completely erroneous.

8. In support of this contention, he has relied on the Case of Rajnesh (supra) wherein he has specifically relied on paragraph 65 which runs as follows:

“65. The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the court concerned, as a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.”

9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel, Ms. Ujjani Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/wife by refuting the plea raised by the petitioner that the wife only requires Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, has stated that the concept of ‘alimony pendente lite’ does not co