Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANGEET LODHA, MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, JJ.
Nitesh S/o Vinod Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Aarti W/o Nitesh Agarwal - Respondent
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 56, 99 of 2020
Decided on : 23-03-2020
Criminal Procedure Code,1908 - Section 125, 13, 24 & 26 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 - Maintenance pendente – Application preferred by the wife was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 4.1.18, directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife for herself and Rs.8,000/- each for her two minor children - Amount of maintenance determined by the Family Court payable by the appellant husband to the respondent wife appears to be in little lower side and therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced reasonably.
Facts of the case:
Appeal has been filed by appellant assailing order granting maintenance pendente lite to respondent a sum of Rs.40,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/- each for two minor children - Appeal filed by appellant for enhancement amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by Family Court.
Finding of the court:
Discussion above, appeal preferred by appellant husband is dismissed – Appeal preferred partly allowed - Entitled for maintenance a sum of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- each for her two minor children shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to his wife instead of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses awarded by Family Court No.2, Kota - Order passed by Family Court shall stand modified to extent indicated above.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves an appeal regarding the amount of interim maintenance awarded to the wife and her minor children during the pendency of divorce proceedings. The appellate court is reviewing whether the maintenance amount is appropriate based on the financial capacity of the husband (!) (!) .
The Family Court initially awarded a lower maintenance amount, which was challenged by the wife seeking an increase due to her lack of independent income and the husband's substantial earnings and assets. The husband contested the amount, arguing that it was too high and did not accurately reflect his income (!) .
The court acknowledged that interim maintenance is inherently temporary and does not require an elaborate assessment, but it must consider all relevant factors, including the income and financial position of both parties, social status, and assets (!) (!) (!) .
The husband owns multiple assets, including agricultural land, plots in developed areas, and shares in property, with a total value estimated at over Rs.1.5 crore. He also has substantial income from business operations, rental income, and gifts received from family members, indicating a strong financial position (!) (!) (!) .
The income declared in the husband's tax returns for recent assessment years suggests a gross income of approximately Rs.21-25 lakh per year, but other documents and certificates indicate higher actual income, including income from business, interest, and gifts, which the court considers in its assessment (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the purpose of interim maintenance is to support a spouse who lacks sufficient independent income, and the amount should be reasonable, considering the respondent's needs and the respondent husband's capacity to pay (!) (!) .
The court finds that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court was on the lower side given the husband's income and assets, and therefore, it enhances the maintenance amount to Rs.50,000 for the wife and Rs.20,000 for each minor child. Additionally, the litigation expenses awarded to the wife are increased from Rs.15,000 to Rs.50,000, considering the expenses incurred by her (!) (!) .
The appeals are disposed of accordingly: the husband's appeal for reduction is dismissed, and the wife's appeal for enhancement is partly allowed, with the modified maintenance and expenses orders coming into effect from the date of the Family Court's order (!) .
Would you like a further detailed analysis or specific legal implications based on this case?
JUDGMENT :
Mr.Sangeet Lodha,J.
1. These two appeals arising out of order dated 20.9.19 passed by the Family Court No.2, Kota in Civil Misc. Case No.94/19, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Appeal No.56/2020 has been filed by the appellant Nitesh Agarwal (husband) assailing the order granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent (wife) a sum of Rs.40,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/- each for two minor children Darsh and Mihit whereas, the appeal No.99/2020 is filed by the appellant Smt. Aarti for enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the Family Court.
3. The facts relevant are that Shri Nitesh Agarwal (husband) filed a petition against Smt. Aarti (wife) seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”). During the pendency of the petition, the wife filed an application under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the husband a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for herself and Rs.1,00,000/- each for her two minor sons Darsh and Mihit. That apart, she claimed litigation expenses a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lump sum. The wife averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas as per income tax return, the husband is earning Rs.26,52,082/- per annum, however, his actual income from the firm Sitaram Radhakishan is Rs.80,00,000/- per month and he is also earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month as rental income from a multi-storey commercial building situated in Scheme No.54, Indore. The details of immovable properties owned by the husband and his bank balance were also set out in the application filed. No reply to the application preferred by the wife as aforesaid was filed by the husband, however, an application was filed on his behalf disclosing his income during the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as Rs.9,03,689/-, Rs.14,77,568/- and Rs.10,29,901/- respectively and taking a specific stand that keeping in view the details of the income furnished if appropriate order is passed by the Court awarding maintenance to his wife and minor children, he has no objection.
4. The application preferred by the wife was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 4.1.18, directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife for herself and Rs.8,000/- each for her two minor children.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.18 passed by the Family Court, the wife preferred an appeal being D.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3791/18 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 3.7.19 and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court No.2, Kota to decide the application filed under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955 afresh, with the directions in the following terms:
6. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court while deciding the application preferred by the wife afresh, determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite as indicated above. The Family Court also directed the appellant husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent wife in lump sum towards the litigation expenses. Hence, these appeals.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband contended that the Family Court has seriously erred in determining the income of th
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
