IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of HMA should consider the financial capacity and obligations of the parties, and the spouse seeking maintenance should make sincere efforts to gain employment.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - Present appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA for short) dated April 24, 2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court (South), Saket, New Delhi in HMA 318/2022, whereby the appellant was directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the petition till its disposal along with litigation expenses of Rs. 51,000/-.

2. In brief, appellant was married to respondent on November 19, 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Further, respondent returned back to her parental home on July 07, 2020 owing to differences between the parties. Respondent is stated to have preferred a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWVD Act for short) against the appellant and his family members on January 27, 2021, wherein the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 21,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance vide order dated December 12, 2022. Appellant also preferred the divorce petition against respondent before the Family Court wherein the impugned order has been passed under Section 24 of HMA, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent along with litigation expenses.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- per month as maintenance in the proceedings under PWDV Act, which has been enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- in the proceedings under Section 24 of HMA without any change in circumstances. The gross salary of the appellant in terms of salary slip for May, 2022 is stated to be Rs. 1,04,276/- but in hand salary is claimed as Rs. 47,784/-. It is further submitted that respondent is a Graduate from Delhi University and working as Receptionist in Shuddhi Ayurveda Panchkarma Hospital and earning more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. Also, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- is stated to have already been paid to the respondent towards litigation expenses. It is vehemently urged that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant is the only earning member in the family and has to support his sisters, brothers and aged parents. It is further submitted that appellant had also borrowed a loan of Rs. 4 lakh from his employer for marriage of his younger brother and was paying instalments towards the same.

4. On the other hand, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is supported by learned counsel for the respondent. It is admitted that maintenance was awarded Rs. 221,000/- per month in the proceedings under PWDV Act but the same is stated to have been challenged before the Court of Sessions and is pending consideration. It is further urged that in the reply, it was pointed out that respondent is merely working as a Social Worker and is not drawing any salary from the hospital. The current salary of the appellant is stated to be much more than Rs, 21,04,000/- per month as was drawn in May, 2022.

5. Learned Judge, Family Court, after taking into consideration the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed by the parties in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, along with relied upon documents observed that the respondent had no independent source of income, which may be sufficient for her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings as no material or reliable details could be brought on record that she is working as a Receptionist and drawing the salary, as alleged by the appellant. It was also noticed that though as per affidavit filed by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 219,450/- is being incurred on payment of EMIs but no details in this regard had been mentioned except that as per pay slip, a sum of Rs. 218,093/- is being deducted from the salary of appellant towards society recovery, which could not be taken into consideration for computation of liability of the appellant.

6. We have given considered thoug