The court's decision was guided by the wide discretion conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance, considering the means of the parties, social status, and the economical dependence of the petitioner.

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by ld. Judge-Family Courts in H.M.A. No.87/2010 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/-p.m. and litigation expenses @ Rs. 15,000/-were awarded to the respondent while disposing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) filed by the respondent.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.11.1999 at Delhi and a girl and a boy were born from the wedlock. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. Consequently the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is working as Chief Medical Officer at Hindu Rao Hospital and it was his responsibility to maintain his wife and female child who resides with her, the ld. Judge passed the impugned order granting maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent.

3. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is working as senior nurse at G.B. Pant Hospital and is earning reasonable salary and can maintain herself and the female child residing with her, while the petitioner is maintaining his parents as well as the male child who is in his custody. It has been submitted that the ld. Trial Court has wrongfully concluded that the petitioner is a person of high status and has awarded exorbitant amount of maintenance to the respondent against the spirit of Section 24 of the Act.

4. In Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain AIR 2010 SC 3540, deliberating on the issue of interim maintenance during pendency of litigation , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,

“8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.”(emphasis supplied by us).

5. In a case such as the present one, the salary of the petitioner as per the salary slip is Rs. 79,084/-which is quite a good amount and much more than the income of the respondent. Just because the respondent is working and drawing salary of about Rs. 36,000/-per month, that does not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility of maintenance of his wife and child. The intent of Section 24 of the Act is to provide support to the wife or husband so that the less financially sound spouse is not deterred by the financial constraints of the litigation.

6. The plea of the petitioner that he has the responsibility of maintaining his parents along with the male child is improbable as it