Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 715
High Court Of Delhi
K.LALCHANDANI - Appellant
Versus
MEENU LALCHANDANI - Respondent
Civil Revision 787 of 1996
Decided On : 09/01/1997
K.C.DEVAN, S.K.Luthra
The amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be reasonable and in tune with the income of the petitioner/husband, the standard of living to which the wife and children were used to before separation, and the necessary expenses of the proceedings.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 24 - MAINTENANCE PENDENTE LITE - AWARD - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - STANDARD OF LIVING OF SPOUSE AND CHILDREN - INCOME OF PETITIONER - ASSETS OF RESPONDENT - REASONABLE AMOUNT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner husband challenged the order granting maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 12,000 per month to the respondent wife and three minor children under Sections 24-26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, while the respondent wife challenged the same order for being inadequate. The husband claimed that the wife had sufficient means and that the maintenance awarded was excessive, while the wife claimed that she had no independent income and that the maintenance awarded was insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had a sizable income and that the wife and children had to be put on the same position as the husband/father and accorded the same standard of living which they enjoyed till the date of separation. The court also noted that the wife had to maintain herself and three minor children, one of whom was getting Rs. 500 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the eldest daughter was earning Rs. 3,500 per month.
Issues: 1. Whether the maintenance pendente lite awarded by the lower court was excessive and unreasonable? 2. Whether the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself and the children?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the maintenance pendente lite awarded by the lower court was excessive and unreasonable, and that an amount of Rs. 8,000 per month would be a just and reasonable amount considering the income of the husband and the standard of living to which the wife and children were used to. The court also held that the wife did not have sufficient means to maintain herself and the children, as her assets were being utilized for family purposes and she had to bear the incidental expenses of the house where she was residing with the children.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the husband's revision petition and reduced the amount of pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Act from Rs. 12,000 per month to Rs. 8,000 per month for the period covered in the order dated 6.7.1996 of the lower court. The court dismissed the wife's revision petition.
( 1 ) THESE two cross civil revision petitions under Section 115, CPC arise out of the order dated 6. 7. 1996 passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20/94 under Sections 24-26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") thereby awarding maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 12,000. 00 per month to the respondent/wife Smt. Meenu Lalchandani and three minor children from 4. 11. 1990 to 12. 4. 1994.
( 2 ) THE petitioner/husband has challenged the aforesaid order being aggrieved with the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/ per month u/secs. 24-26 of the Act whereas the respondent/wife has challenged the said order being aggrieved with the partial grant of her prayer.
( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10. 9. 1967; that three daughters and one son have been born to the respondent/wife through the petitioner / husband during the wedlock; that the spouses parted company on 18. 8. 90; that the petitioner/husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage. The respondent/wife applied under Section 24 of the Act and prayed for maintenance pendente lite for herself @ Rs. 1 l,700. 00 per month, Rs. 15,000. 00 for her gynecological operation, Rs. 4,500. 00 as maintenance for the three minor children and Rs. 10,000. 00 as litigation expenses. The learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, by his order dated 6. 7. 1996 directed the payment of maintenance pendente lite@ Rs. 12,000. 00 per month from 4. 11. 1990 to 12. 4. 1994. Both the petitioner and the respondent have assailed this order in these revision petitions.
( 4 ) IT i. s submitted by Mr. Luthra, learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband that as far as Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, there is no question of moral duty; that the intention of Section 24 of the Act is that the maintenance pendente lite be provided to the spouse who does not have sufficient income to maintain/support himself or herself, as the case may be; that the respondent/wife is possessed of more than sufficient means; that at present there is only one minor child; that in 1990, two daughters and one son were minor; that the respondent/wife has about Rs. 10. 00 lakhs which cannot be ignored; that for one minor child, maintenance @ Rs. 500. 00 per month u/sec. 125, Cr. P. C. has been awarded and which is being complied with; that there is no specific rationale and the order under challenge is only on conjunctures; that the grant of maintenance pendente lite has to be subject to the petitioner s income and the same has to be reasonable; that the order of maintenance @ Rs. 12,000. 00 per month for the maintenance of mother and three children is fallacious; that the mother and the children have been living in the same house which is a joint house of the respondent and the petitioner; that the petitioner/ husband has been living in the rented premises and that the balance sheet of the year 1989-90 suggests income of the Company and not that of the petitioner.
( 5 ) AS against this, it is submitted by Mr. K. C. Dewan, learned Counsel for the respondent/wife that there is no basis for the respondent/wife having Rs. 10,00,000. 00 on the date of the petition; that only eldest daughter is earning Rs. 3,500. 00 per month and there are five members to be maintained with no income; that the petitioner/husband disposed of two properties in 1990; that the respondent/ wife and the minor children should be provided the same standard of living to which they are used to while with the petitioner/ respondent; that the balance sheet of the year 1989-90 suggests the income of the petitioner/husband; that income tax is not payable on the income of agency business; that the petitioner/husband has been earning about Rs. 8. 00 lakhs per year; that three daughters have to be got married; that no interference is called for in the order passed by the lower Court; that only one chi
