IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is essential for ensuring the sustenance of a spouse without independent income during divorce proceedings, and the discretion to grant such maintenance must be exercised judiciously.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in the Original (M.T.S) Suit No. 21/2017, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed by directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and also Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor daughter as interim maintenance pendente lite to the respondent (wife) of the date of the passing of the order.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition is that one suit being Original (M.T.S) Suit No. 21/2017 was filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, a petition was filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for claiming interim maintenance pendente lite for sustenance of the wife as also the daughter. The learned Court allowed the said petition by directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent wife and Rs. 5,000 per/- month to the minor daughter, which is the subject matter of the instant petition.

3. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband has submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned Court has not taken into consideration the relevant documents, i.e., Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent-wife, which shows that she is fully capable to bear the expense incurred in the divorce proceeding.

4. It has further been contended that the learned Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the husband, the petitioner herein, is only earning a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- and out of that Rs. 10,000/- the direction was passed for making payment of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the daughter, which if allowed to be remained then the survival of the petitioner will be more difficult.

5. It has further been submitted that respondent-wife has deserted him without any reasonable cause, hence she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance from the petitioner-husband.

6. The further ground has been taken that the other documents, which were placed before the learned trial Court, has not been taken into consideration while passing such direction in the impugned order.

7. Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted by defending the impugned order that whatever is being said on behalf of the petitioner-husband that a boutique is being run by the respondent wife is not factually correct, rather, the same is owned by the husband, the petitioner herein.

8. It has been contended that the respondent wife is having no means of source to sustain due to the reason that she lives in Ranchi along with the daughter, and therefore, the surviving cost based upon the Price Index since is high, hence the amount which has been ordered to be given as interim maintenance is a meagre amount which may not be interfered with.

9. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the husband-petitioner, in course of the argument has submitted that so far as the amount as has been directed to be paid in favour of the daughter is concerned, the same is not being questioned on the ground since the daughter has taken birth from the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent wife herein, hence he is not questioning the amount that has been ordered to be paid in favour of daughter.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order.

11. The admitted position here is that the petitioner-husband has filed a suit for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

12. During pendency of the said suit, the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the respondent-wife for th