Maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the HMA must fairly reflect the financial capacities of both spouses and ensure adequate support for dependents.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The commonality of challenge in these two writ Petitions, one by wife and the other by husband is to the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Talcher in I.A. No.63 of 2016 arising out of MAT Case No. 19 of 2016 directing the husband/father to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month to wife and Rs.5000/- to the minor child w.e.f. 11.07.2016 in addition to direction for payment of litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife in an application U/S.24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the “HMA”).

2. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned trial Court has directed the husband to pay arrear maintenance amount and litigation expenses to the wife within one month of passing of order by authorizing the wife to receive maintenance for her minor child in addition to her own maintenance. For clarity, it needs to be emphasized that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23220 of 2017 who is the husband has prayed to set aside the impugned order, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1797 of 2017 who is the wife seeks for enhancement of the maintenance granted to her vide the impugned order. Accordingly, both the writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Lalit Kumar Moharana, learned counsel appearing for the husband while not disputing the status of the parties and grant of pendente lite maintenance to the child @ Rs.5000/- per month has submitted that the petitioner-husband is ready to pay Rs.6000/- to the child, since the husband’s income is very meager which is Rs.25,000/- per month from all sources and he has also incurred expenses towards rent for his accommodation, travel, EMI for the loan taken by him, food, clothing and medicine, but the learned trial Court ignoring such facts has erroneously directed the husband to pay Rs.45,000/- per month to the wife. It is further submitted by Mr. Moharana that the wife has not approached the Court with clean hands or in terms of Chapter-III of General Rules and Circular Orders(Civil) Vol.II (in short, GRCO) containing Rules under Hindu Marriage Act referred as “The Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules,1956 ( in short, the “Rules”) in which Rule-13 prescribes that every application for maintenance pendente lite, permanent alimony and maintenance or for custody, maintenance and educational expenses of minor children, shall state the average monthly income of the petitioner and the respondent the sources of these income, particulars of other movable and immovable property owned by them, the number of dependents on the petitioner and the respondent, and the names and age of such dependents, but the application of wife for pendente lite maintenance does not disclose the above factors and thereby, the claim of the wife ought to have been rejected on that score. On coming to the quantification of the pendente lite maintenance to the wife, Mr. Moharana learned counsel for the husband has submitted that the husband is working as a “Sales Executive” with Tirupati Enterprises, Jharsuguda since May-2023 and his current net annual income is Rs.3,00,000/-, but due to typographical error, the income of the husband has been shown by him in the objection to the application for pendente lite maintenance in I.A. No.63 of 2016 to be net income of Rs.3,00,000/- per month, however, the husband cannot pay such a huge amount of Rs.45,000/- per month to the wife as pendente lite maintenance. Mr. Moharana, however, has alternatively submitted that since the petitioner is the husband, he cannot avoid his liability and at best, he can pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-