IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, and adverse inferences can be drawn against a party who deliberately chooses not to contest the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - The challenge in this appeal under Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, referred to as 'HMA') is to an order dated April 06, 2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, whereby the respondent-husband was directed to pay the maintenance to the minor child @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the decision of the case, while the pendente lite maintenance to the appellant wife was declined.

2. In brief, the marriage between the appellant (petitioner before the learned Trial Court) and the respondent was solemnized on September 02, 2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born out of the wedlock on December 10, 2010. A petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) HMA was preferred by the appellant on September 13, 2019 claiming that the respondent had treated her with cruelty and deserted her, constraining the appellant to live separately w.e.f. December, 2013. Also, an application under Section 24 HMA was filed along with the petition claiming maintenance @ Rs.75,000/- per month for the appellant and the minor daughter along with litigation expenses.

3. Pursuant to summons issued by the Family Court, respondent entered appearance on December 19, 2019 and submitted that without admitting allegations in the appeal, he had no problem in giving divorce to the appellant wife by way of mutual consent. He further admitted that they had a child who has been studying in Jaipur and was in care and custody of the appellant wife and sought time for giving his offer. Thereafter, respondent remained absent on the next two dates. On account of absence of respondent, learned Judge, Family Court, left with no other option, closed the right to file written statement as well as reply to the application under Section 24 HMA. Further, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte on April 04, 2022 and the matter was listed for ex-parte evidence of the petitioner/appellant.

4. For the purpose of application under Section 24 HMA, appellant, who is MBA, LLB and professionally qualified in Gems and Gemology, submitted that she started a business in 2008 under the name and style of IDT Laboratory and was doing part-time work. After shifting to Jaipur, she started full-time business and managed to earn Rs.40,000/- from the business. The net worth of the business was disclosed as Rs.15 lacs and gross profits at Rs.4 lacs per annum. In addition to the business, appellant claimed rental income of Rs.15,000/- from immovable property, jointly owned with her cousin. Apart from above, she held four FDRs of Rs.1 lac each, amounting to Rs.4,26,021/- approximately. The monthly expenses on the education, stationery and entertainment of child were further claimed to be Rs.36,066/- and total monthly expenditure at Rs.1,18,633/-.

5. In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, it was submitted that respondent husband owned a three bedroom duplex house with terrace rights in South Delhi (i.e. H.No. 402, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, Kalkaji, New Delhi). It was further averred that respondent was maintaining three cars and the parties had visited Mumbai, Shirdi and Goa for a trip in the year 2013 as well as to other places also by air along with stay at five star hotels. The respondent was further stated to be a practicing Advocate, maintaining a double storey chamber in Tis Hazari Complex. The income of respondent, as such, was claimed to be not less than Rs.2 lacs per month.

6. Learned Judge, Family Court denied maintenance pendente lite to the wife holding that she is capable of earning and maintaining herself and as such does not require any financial support. Further, the income of the respondent husband who is a practicing Advocate was assessed to be not less than Rs.1 lac per month, in the absence of income and assets affidavit of the respondent. Considering that an amount of Rs.36,066/- per mo