Back
2010 Supreme(Ori) 882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Biswal, J.
SMT. SUJATA SAHU - APPELLANT
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR BEHERA - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 14202 and 8427 of 2009
Decided On : 10-03-2010
P.K. Rath, P.K. Satpathy, R.N. Parija, A.K. Rout, S.K. Pattnaik and D.P. Pattnayak, in W.P.C No. 8427 of 2009 and S.S. Das, K. Behera, S. Modi, P.K. Ghosh, S.S. Pradhan and S. Mishra, in W.P.C No. 14202 of 2009, for the Appellant; S.S. Das, K. Behera, S. Modi, P.K. Ghosh, S.S. Pradhan and S. Mishra, in W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009 and P.K. Rath, P.K. Satpathy, R.N. Parija, A.K. Rout, S.K. Pattnaik and D.P. Pattnayak in W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife and daughter, as well as the factors considered in determining interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 24 - I.A. No. 562 of 2008 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the interpretation of the same in the context of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The court considered the income and financial means of both parties in determining the maintenance amount. The judgment highlights the duty of a husband to maintain his wife and daughter and the factors considered in awarding interim maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed by a husband and wife challenging the order of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The husband sought to quash the maintenance awarded to the wife, claiming she had sufficient means to maintain herself and their child. The wife argued for an increase in the maintenance amount based on the husband's income and expenses for the child's education.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's income may not be sufficient to maintain herself and her daughter, while the husband, being a businessman, had a moral duty to maintain them. The court upheld the trial court's decision to award a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as interim maintenance for the wife and child and refused to grant litigation expenses to the wife.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the determination of interim maintenance and litigation expenses based on the financial means of the parties, including the husband's income and the wife's alleged beauty clinic business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which outlines the provision for interim maintenance. The court considered the financial means of both parties and the moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife and daughter.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
R.N. Biswal, J. - The parties in both the cases are same. They are husband and wife. In both the writ petitions one and same order has been challenged. Accordingly, both the cases are heard together and this common judgment is passed.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the wife is the Petitioner and the husband is the opp.party while in W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, the husband is the Petitioner and the wife is the opp.party. In W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the wife called in question the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 562 of 2008 arising out of MAT No. 93 of 2007 on the ground that the interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- only, allowed therein was very meagre and that refusal of litigation expenses was illegal. In W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, the husband challenged the award of maintenance passed in the aforesaid order, on the ground that wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and her child, and as such Court below ought not to have awarded any maintenance in their favour.
3. The background facts of the above writ petitions succinctly stated is that husband filed the aforesaid MAT case for divorce against the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. During pendency of the said case, the wife filed a petition u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses, which gave rise to I.A. No. 562 of 2008. As per the case of the wife in W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, she married the opp.party therein in the year, 2000 in accordance with Hindu Rights and their caste custom and out of their wed-lock, a female child was born. The opp.party-husband has filed the aforesaid matrimonial case on false ground of cruelty and desertion. He has extra marital relationship with a Muslim girl and when it was objected to by the Petitioner, the matrimonial case has been filed. It is the further cas-e of the wife-Petitioner that opp.party-husband has three beauty clinic-cum-sliming centres two at Bhubaneswar and one at Rourkela, after the name and style, Perfect Point. The net income of the husband-opp. party is Rs.15, 00, 000/- per month. On the other hand, she has no source of income. Hence, she claimed a sum of Rs.15, 000/-per month for herself and for her child towards interim maintenance and a sum of Rs.30, 000/- for litigation expenses. In his counter, opp.party-husband admitted the Petitioner to be his legally married wife. He also admitted that a female child was born out of their wed-lock. But, he refuted the averment that he is running three beauty clinic-cum-sliming centers. According to him, he and his partners are running a partnership business at Sahid Nagar and IRC village, Bhubaneswar only. He is earning Rs. 10, 000/- to 11, 000/-per month from the said business. With the aforesaid meagre income, he is maintaining himself and his ailing mother with much difficulty. It is the further case of the opp.party-husband that the Petitioner-wife is running a beauty clinic, wherefrom she is earning more than Rs.20, 000/- per month. She is financially sound enough to maintain herself and her child and to meet the litigation expenses. As such, she herself and the child are not entitled to get any maintenance.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.3, 000/- towards monthly maintenance for both the wife and daughter, and refused to grant any litigation expenses. Being aggrieved with the said orders, while wife filed W.P.(C) No. 8427 of 2009, the husband filed W.P.(C) No. 14202 of 2009, as stated earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that to create evidence, the husband got published in Oriya daily, 'the Dharitri' in its issues dated 29th and 30th June, 2009 that the wife is an expert beautician and she is a proprietor of Nitisha's Beauty Clinic at C-24, 2nd Floor, Market Complex, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. It weighed in the mind of the trial Court that since the wife is a beautician and she is
