A spouse's income alone cannot be the sole ground for denying maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court must also consider the inadequacy of the spouse's income to maintain the level of social status of the other spouse.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - This appeal is directed against order dated 3.11.18 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, whereby an application preferred by the appellant under Sections 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter has been partly allowed. The maintenance claimed by the appellant for herself has been denied, however, the respondent has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month for the minor daughter.

2. The facts relevant are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of divorce against the appellant. During the pendency of the petition, the appellant preferred an application under Section 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955 seeking maintenance for herself and minor daughter, a sum of Rs.60,000/- and litigation expenses 1,15,000/-. The appellant is employed as Pharmacist and earning Rs.46,000/- per month. The appellant alleged that the respondent who is employed as Assistant Professor in Psychiatrist in the Government Medical College is earning Rs.50,000/- per month as salary. That apart, according to the appellant, he is earning Rs.1,00,000/- from private practice and Rs.50,000/- from other sources of income. However, while giving the details of income as aforesaid, the appellant claimed that total monthly income of the respondent is about Rs.4,50,000/-.

3. The respondent filed a reply to the application taking the stand that since the appellant is earning Rs.46,000/- per month and therefore, she is in position to maintain herself and the minor daughter. The respondent denied that he is earning Rs.4,50,000 per month, however, admitted that he is earning Rs.60,000/- by way of salary and Rs.25,000-30,000 per month from private practice.

4. After due consideration of the material on record and rival submissions, the Family Court arrived at the finding that the respondent must be earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month but since the appellant herein is also earning Rs.48,000/- per month, she is not entitled for any maintenance for herself. The Family Court observed that the mother and father both are under an obligation to maintain the daughter and accordingly, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance for his minor daughter. Hence, this appeal on behalf of the appellant for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is not the law that if both the spouses are earning, they cannot claim any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. It is submitted that while considering the application for award of maintenance, the relevant consideration is inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself or for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse and therefore, if one spouse has comparatively higher income than other, the application seeking maintenance cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the spouse applying for maintenance has his/her own source of income. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the higher income of the respondent, the appellant is entitled for the maintenance as claimed. That apart, the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court for appellant's minor daughter is too meagre and deserves to be enhanced adequately. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the documents placed on record before this Court to show that the respondent has sources of income other than already admitted in reply to the application. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied decision of the Court in the matters of Sonia Godhwani (Smt.) vs. Hitesh Godhwani: 2019 (1) CR (Raj.), 160 and Dr. Sonal Saxena (Smt.) vs. Shri Aseem Saxena, (2019) 4 WLN(Raj) 470 .

6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant is also earning Rs.46,000/- per month