SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Ori) 35

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Barman, C. J.
PRASANA KUMAR PATRA - Appellant
Versus
SURESWARI PATRANI - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal 88  Of  1967
Decided On : MAY 02, 1968

Advocates Appeared:
Y.S.N.MURTY

The determination of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should consider the husband's income, the conduct of the parties, and generally allow maintenance at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - The court considered the wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and determined the interim maintenance based on the husband's income and the conduct of the parties. The court modified the lower court's order and granted the wife Rs. 12 per month as interim maintenance.

Fact of the Case:

The husband appealed against an order granting his wife Rs. 30 as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and the wife filed the petition for maintenance during the pendency of the suit, claiming the husband had sufficient income.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband's income was sufficient to grant maintenance but considered the conduct of the parties in determining the quantum of maintenance. The court modified the lower court's order and granted the wife Rs. 12 per month as interim maintenance, confirming the litigation expenses.

Issues: The issues involved the determination of reasonable interim maintenance for the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, considering the husband's income and the conduct of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered that maintenance pendente lite should generally be allowed at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions, and the conduct of the parties is relevant in determining the quantum of maintenance. The court also noted that in the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband.

Final Decision: The court modified the lower court's order and granted the wife Rs. 12 per month as interim maintenance, while confirming the litigation expenses. The Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed in part, and there was no order as to costs.

S. BARMAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a husband's appeal1 against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, sambalpur, on the wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of the hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) by which the wife was granted Rs. 30 as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses.

( 2 ) THE relationship between the husband and the wife does not appear to be very cordial in that on February 1, 1967 the husband filed a suit against the wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said suit the wife filed this petition under Section 24 for interim maintenance and for expenses of the litigation. According to the wife, the husband has sufficient income to the extent of Rupees 2,033 per year. The learned subordinate Judge on appreciation of the evidence as discussed by him in his judgment, which I need not repeat herein, came to the conclusion that taking a modest view of the earnings of the husband it will not 'be less than Rs. 60 per month from the Pan shop and from his joint family lands. The reasoning on which he granted Rs. 30 as interim maintenance is that the husband has no dependent to maintain and further that in these hard days the barest minimum, expenditure for the maintenance of an adult will not be less than rs. 30 per month and accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge thought it reasonable to direct the husband to pay Rs. 30 to the wife as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses.

( 3 ) THERE is no doubt that the wife is entitled to certain amount of maintenance. But the question is: what should be the reasonable amount? As for maintenance pendente lite, courts generally allow it at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one-fifth the net income. Under the Hindu Marriage act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband. As regards litigation expenses, it should be reasonable, Mukan Kunwar v. Ajeetchand, air 1958 Raj 322.

( 4 ) IN determining the quantum of maintenance the conduct of the parties is also relevant; it is permissible for the court to go into the conduct of the wife with reference to the question whether she should be held to have forfeited her claim for maintenance in sympathy of her claim. In the present case, evidently, the wife refused to stay with her husband by reason of which the husband had to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge does not appear to have taken into consideration these aspects in fixing the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that the husband has an income of only Rs. 60 per month from the Pan shop and from his joint family lands. In these circumstances, I think that a sum of Rs. 30 per month as interim maintenance granted by the learned Subordinate Judge seems to be excessive. In this case, having regard to the income of the husband and the conduct of the wife rs. 12 per month as representing one-fifth of the income of the husband will be reasonable.

( 6 ) IN this view of the case, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is modified to the extent that the wife will be entitled to Rs. 12 per month as interim maintenance. As regards litigation expenses, the order of the learned Subordinate judge allowing Rs. 75 is confirmed. The Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top