Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Sucheta Zutshi Nee Pandita - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Pandita - Respondent
CM (M) 566 of 2008
Decided On : 12-01-2011
For the Appellant : Ajay Kumar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of various factors, including the reasonable wants of the claimant, the non-applicant's payment capacity, and the need for the maintenance amount to enable the claimant to live in a similar lifestyle as enjoyed in the matrimonial home, in determining interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - 24 - 125 - Status of the parties, Reasonable wants of the claimant, The independent income and property of the claimant, The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain, The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, Non-applicant's liabilities, if any, Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant, Payment capacity of the non-applicant, Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed, The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation, The amount awarded u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s 24 of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought interim maintenance for herself and her minor child under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, challenging the maintenance amount granted by the trial court as insufficient and unreasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the maintenance awarded by the trial court was extremely insufficient and unreasonable, considering the lifestyle and needs of the Petitioner and her minor child.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of the maintenance amount granted by the trial court under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the factors outlined in the case of Sh. Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde, (2007) 140 DLT 16, and emphasized the need for the maintenance amount to enable the Petitioner to live in a similar lifestyle as she enjoyed in her matrimonial home, taking into account reasonable wants and the non-applicant's payment capacity.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and fixed the interim maintenance for the Petitioner and her minor son at Rs. 15,000/- per month, to be paid by the Respondent, emphasizing the need for the maintenance to enable the Petitioner to maintain herself and her minor school going son with dignity.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application filed by Petitioner u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, in HMA No. 274/2007, seeking interim maintenance for herself and for her minor child. Learned trial court vide its order dated 3.3.2008 has granted maintenance @ Rs. 4000/- per month, to the Petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2500/- per month, to the minor child.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that maintenance awarded by the trial court is extremely unreasonable and insufficient for the Petitioner and her school going minor son, who is stated to be seven years of age. Counsel further submits that Petitioner has no other source of livelihood. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an affidavit filed by the Petitioner in this Court in compliance with the order dated 21.4.2010 in which a categorical assertion has been made by the Petitioner that she is not employed.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although Petitioner is residing with her parents but she has to pay for the school fee, school uniform, transport and other expenses. Counsel further submits that learned trial court while passing the order for maintenance has failed to take into consideration the family background of the parties and the standard of living, which was being maintained by them in their matrimonial home.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent (husband) is a Senior Software Engineer, which is evident from the salary slip, which has been placed on record. Counsel further submits that salary slip of the Petitioner would show that the annual income of the Respondent is Rs. 4,81,014/-. Counsel also submits that even in case the deductions are made with respect to conveyance allowance, house rent allowance and Provident Fund, this would still leave the Respondent with an income of more than Rs. 30,000/-, per month. Counsel next submits that Petitioner and her son are entitled to a similar lifestyle as was being enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite having considered these factors and also discussed the settled position of law, the trial court has granted maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- to the Petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,500/- to the minor child.
5. Despite various opportunities having been granted, reply to this petition has not been filed by the Respondent. None had appeared on behalf of the Respondent on the last date of hearing. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the Respondent even today.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also perused the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the learned trial court and the salary slip of the Petitioner, which has been placed on record.
7. The factors to be considered while deciding an application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act can never be exhaustive and the courts must consider the facts of each case. The following undisputed facts which emerge are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.10.2001. Out of the wedlock between the parties a son was born, who is presently 7 years of age and is studying in a private school. Parties separated in the year of 2006. The trial court has observed in its order that Respondent is working as an Engineer in a multinational company and is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 34,000/-, per month, approximately. The trial court has further observed that the Respondent has shown his monthly expenses as Rs. 22,000/-, per month, by including his LIC premium and income tax.
8. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sh. Bharat Hegde Vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde, (2007) 140 DLT 16 had culled out following 11 factors, which can be taken into consideration for deciding the application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, relevant portion of which reads as under:
8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed p
