Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Poonam - Petitioner
Versus
Virender Chauhan - Respondent
CMPMO No. 162 of 2014
Decided On : 21-11-2014
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act - The court discussed the obligation of a Hindu male to maintain his wife under the Shastric Hindu Law, the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of proceedings, and the determination of maintenance based on the income of the parties. The court emphasized the duty of the husband to provide for the wife's maintenance and support pending the disposal of the proceeding and the factors considered in determining the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-wife filed a petition for enhancement of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming that she had no independent income and needed financial assistance for pursuing her studies and defending the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the maintenance and litigation expenses awarded by the lower court were meager considering the present cost of living and the status of the parties. It also noted that the respondent-husband had not disclosed his actual income, while the petitioner had no independent income at the time of claiming maintenance.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, and the sufficiency of independent income for the claimant spouse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the obligation for a Hindu male to maintain his wife is a longstanding concept, and the duty of the husband to provide for the wife's maintenance and support is inherent in the status of matrimony. It emphasized that the determination of maintenance depends on the circumstances of each case and that the claimant spouse's qualification or ability to support herself is not a sufficient reason to deny maintenance when she has no independent income. The court also highlighted the importance of disclosing actual income and the factors to be considered in determining the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses.
Final Decision: The court enhanced the maintenance pendente-lite to Rs. 12,000 per month and the litigation expenses to Rs. 10,000, considering the income of the respondent-husband and the circumstances of the case.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses, is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla on 19.5.2014 whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act') filed by the petitioner-wife for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses has been allowed thereby awarding the amount of maintenance pendente-lite to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for grant of decree of divorce against the petitioner-wife, which is pending before the Court below. The petitioner-wife is presently residing in Kurukshetra University in Girls' Hostel for pursuing her studies of Ph.D. The petitioner has submitted that she has no source of income and her mother is providing necessary financial assistance for pursuing her studies and in order to defend the divorce petition she needs maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as litigation expenses. She also submitted that the respondent-husband is having sufficient means for providing maintenance allowance and litigation expenses to her.
3. The respondent-husband resisted and contested the application by filing reply in which he has submitted that the instant application is not maintainable and the petitioner-wife is also estopped to file this application on account of her acts, conduct, deeds etc. He has denied that the petitioner-wife needs maintenance allowance and litigation expenses as claimed by her. He also denied that he is having sufficient means to provide her maintenance allowance and litigation expenses. According to him, he arranged for job and rented accommodation at Kurukshetra at the instance of the petitioner-wife, who wanted to pursue her studies at Kurukshetra, but he was compelled to resign his job as the petitioner-wife did not accompany him nor she lived with him. He further submitted that he has also no source of income because of the compelling circumstances created by the petitioner-wife. The respondent-husband has stated that the petitioner-wife has been provided financial assistance by the UGC to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- which fact she had suppressed from the Court below and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. The learned Court below vide order dated 19.5.2014 allowed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses, which is impugned in this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully.
6. According to petitioner, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the Court below towards maintenance and likewise Rs. 5,000/-awarded towards litigation expenses is too meager taking into consideration the present day cost of living, price index and also taking into account the status of the parties.
7. Petitioner was awarded maintenance by the Court below on the pretext that she did not possess any independent source of income and has been pursuing her Ph.D studies in Kurukshetra University and staying in Girl's Hostel. Whereas, before this Court, the respondent moved an application, being CMP No. 11042 of 2014, for bringing on record the details of financial assistance received by the petitioner from the University Grants Commission. On the strength of these details, it was claimed that the very basis of awarding compensation was bad since the petitioner had already received by way of financial assistance a sum of Rs. 5,31,182/-.
8. Petitioner filed reply to this application and did not deny the receipt of this amount. However, it was stated that she had joined URS in March, 2008 in Kurukshetra University and in October, 2010, UG
AI
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
