The amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be reasonable and should take into consideration the income of both the parties, their social status, and the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 22.2.19 passed by the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.236/18, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for her minor daughter-Bani. That apart, the appellant is directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum towards the litigation expenses. The amount if any, already been paid by the appellant to the respondent towards the maintenance in other proceedings is directed to be adjusted against the amount payable in terms of the order impugned.

2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month i.e. Rs.40,000/- each for respondent herself and her minor daughter. The respondent further claimed Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

3. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as doctor in Government service and drawing monthly salary of Rs.97,480/-. That apart, he is having 40 bighas command land and also earning by giving the land of his brother measuring 40 bighas for cultivation. The income of the appellant from agriculture as mentioned in the application preferred by the respondent is Rs.20,00,000/- per annum. It was further averred that the appellant is earning Rs.50,000/- per month from sale and purchase of house, plots etc.

4. The application was contested by the appellant by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that respondent has deserted the appellant without reasonable cause and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. According to the appellant, the respondent is employed as Lecturer in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month. The appellant claimed that the respondent is being paid Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and therefore, she is not entitled for any further maintenance.

5. On the basis of the material on record, the Family Court arrived at the finding that the appellant employed as doctor, is earning Rs.97,480/- per month as salary and after deduction, drawing Rs.81,351/- per month. No evidence was produced by the appellant showing that the respondent is employed as a Lecturer in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Family Court determined the amount of maintenance and the litigation expenses payable to the respondent as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after deduction, the appellant is drawing net pay Rs.69,027/- per month only. It is submitted that there was no evidence produced on record showing that the appellant is earning Rs.20,00,000/- from agriculture. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent holding the qualification of MBA is employed in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month and thus, she having reasonable source of income is not entitled for any maintenance. Drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of the respondent recorded by the Family Court in Criminal Case No.889/13, learned counsel submitted that the fact that the respondent is employed in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar stands admitted by her and thus, the finding arrived at by the Family Court that the respondent has no source of income is ex facie erroneous. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT 693