Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Dr. Seema
Versus
Dr. Alkesh Chaudhary
C.M. Nos. 2284 of 2006 & 13056 of 2012 in Mat. App. No. 19 of 2004
Decided On : 11-03-2014
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 23, Section 26, Section 151 CPC - The court discussed and referenced Section 23 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, which allows for the grant of maintenance to a spouse during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. The court also emphasized the need to consider the income and needs of both parties, the status of the parties, and the capacity of the husband to pay while determining the quantum of maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Dr. Seema, sought maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 23 read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 151 CPC, from 1st August, 1999 to 31st January, 2011. The respondent, Dr. Alkesh Chaudhary, opposed the application, claiming that the appellant waived her right to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act and concealed her true income and assets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was liable to pay maintenance to the appellant, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the matter. The court noted the appellant's health issues, unemployment, and the respondent's substantial income and assets. The court directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from 1st August, 1999 to 31st January, 2011 to the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's entitlement to maintenance, the respondent's opposition based on the appellant's alleged waiver of her right to interim maintenance, and the determination of the quantum of maintenance considering the income and needs of both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, and the respondent's substantial income and assets justified the grant of maintenance to the appellant. The court emphasized the need to consider the income and needs of both parties, the status of the parties, and the capacity of the husband to pay while determining the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month from 1st August, 1999 to 31st January, 2011 to the appellant.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. By this order I propose to decide the pending applications, being CM No.2284/2006 and CM No.13056/2012, filed by the appellant/applicant.
2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the matter are that Dr.Seema and Dr.Alkesh Chaudhary were married on 17th April, 1992. A male child was born to them on 22nd May, 1996. The child is with the mother. A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent on 9th January, 1997. It was allowed on 5th February, 2004. Dr.Seema filed an appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 31st January, 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, Dr.Seema filed an application, being CM No.2284/2006 which was directed to be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal but while passing the judgment in the appeal, the said application remained undecided.
3. After the dismissal of the appeal, Dr.Seema filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, Dr.Seema moved an application, being CM No.12396/2011, for restoration of the pending application, being CM No.2284/2006. The said application was allowed by order dated 17th January, 2012. The appellant has also filed an application, being I.A. No.13056/2012, under Section 151 CPC seeking direction against the respondent to produce various documents.
4. Both the parties have also filed the written submissions. The respondent was himself absent at the time of hearing of the applications.
5. The relevant period to claim the maintenance by the appellant is 1st August, 1999 to 31st January, 2011 who filed application for maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 23 read with Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and read with Section 151 CPC. In para 3 of the application, it was stated that the appellant is out of job since August, 2005 and she needs maintenance. It was stated that the respondent has sufficient resources and monthly income and he would be in a position to pay the maintenance to the appellant at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from 1st August, 1999 to 31st July, 2005 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for the period from 1st August, 2005 till she gets reasonable employment.
6. Regarding her non-employment, she filed an affidavit dated 7th July, 2012 pursuant to order dated 30th May, 2012. In the affidavit it is stated that she is a qualified medical doctor being MBBS with post graduate diploma in nuclear medicine. The appellant is not employed anywhere. Earlier she was working as nuclear medicine physician in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Delhi, on contract/tenure basis till July 2005. She worked as clinical assistant. She was getting salary of Rs.19,750/- per month. Now she is unable to do any work and is jobless/unemployed for last six years and eleven months, except for a period of 15 months. It is also stated in the affidavit that the appellant had a prolonged ill health due to gall bladder stones and undergone surgery, cholecystectomy for gall bladder stones in September, 2007. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2008 and undergone long expensive treatment. At that time she was working part time due to ill health.
From 1st August, 2007 to 31st May, 2008 i.e. 10 months duration, she worked in Sun Imaging Centre, Y.K. Diagnostics, Delhi, received a professional fee of Rs.52,026/- per month, after deduction of TDS. She joined Sita Ram Bhartiya Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, on 10th July, 2008 but could not work and continue there because her health did not permit her. From 1st April, 2010 to 31st August, 2010 i.e. 5 months duration, she worked in Inmas, National Heart Institute, Delhi, and received a professional fee of Rs.45000/- per month, after deduction of TDS.
In the affidavit, she has also given the reasons for unemployment due to ill health, details of ailments etc. and also filed the documents to show he
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
