Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 530
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Sangeeta
Versus
Ved Parkash
First Appeal from the Order No. 111 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 27, 1999
A spouse is statutorily obligated to maintain their children and wife, and the court may draw an adverse inference against a spouse who withholds evidence of their income in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 24 - MAINTENANCE - SPOUSE'S OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN CHILDREN AND WIFE - ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST SPOUSE WITHHOLDING BEST EVIDENCE - QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE DETERMINED BASED ON INFERRED INCOME.
Fact of the Case:
In a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty and ill-treatment. Along with the petition, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance for herself and three minor children. The husband contested the application, claiming that he earned less than Rs. 1,200 per month and that the wife earned Rs. 400 per month. He also filed an application seeking maintenance for himself under Section 24 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had not produced sufficient evidence to support his claim of low income and that he had intentionally withheld documents that would have shown his true income. The court also found that the wife had not provided positive evidence of the husband's income, but that her statement should be given some weight since she had been living with him and knew his income from his profession.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband was obligated to maintain his wife and children. 2. Whether the husband had discharged his onus of proving his income. 3. Whether the wife had discharged her onus of proving her income. 4. Whether the court could draw an adverse inference against the husband for withholding evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person in Hindu Society who is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act is statutorily obliged to maintain his children and wife. 2. In proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court is not obliged to press for burden of proof. 3. There is an implied obligation in law upon a party to produce the best evidence in its power and possession for proper determination of the matter in issue before the Court. 4. The court may draw an adverse inference against a party who actually or attempt to withhold the best evidence and true facts from the Court with intention to frustrate the claim of others at this preliminary state of proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the wife's application for maintenance and dismissed the husband's application. The court fixed the maintenance for the wife and three children at Rs. 1,100 per month, including the amount payable under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court also directed the husband to pay arrears of maintenance within 3 months and to continue paying the maintenance amount by the 10th of each succeeding month. The court fixed the litigation expenses at Rs. 1,500.
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Mrs. Sangeeta had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce and dissolution of her marriage with Mr. Ved Parkash to whom she was married according to the Hindu rites at Sunam in the year 1986. The divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and ill-treatment given to the wife and children and very serious allegations against the husband, mother and father were made in the petition.
2. Vide judgment dated 5.4.1997 the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, disbelieved the case of the wife and dismissed the petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved from the said judgment the wife has filed the present first appeal.
3. Alongwith this appeal an application was filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. She claimed that amount for herself and 3 minor children. She also claimed litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. It was averred in the application that the husband was a registered medical practitioner and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month.
4. This application was contested by the husband and he filed a reply where he stated that the mother of the wife in her cross examination before the trial Court, herself had admitted that the wife had been earning Rs. 400/- per month from stitching etc. According to him his wife is earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. In the reply he admitted the fact that he is a registered medical practitioner and was earlier earning some amount but now his income has reduced to Rs. 30 to 40 per day. It is also pointed out by the husband that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has fixed Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance for the 3 children who were living with the wife.
5. The husband did not stop at that. Infact, he filed a separate application being CM No. 15-M of 1998 claiming maintenance for himself from the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He demanded Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 5r000/- as litigation expenses. This application was contested by the wife and reply was filed where she reiterated the averments made in the application filed by the wife. It will be appropriate to dispose of both these applications by a common order.
6. The relationship of husband and wife between the parties is not disputed. The fact that there are 3 children from the wedlock is also admitted. The husband admits that he is a registered medical practitioner and was earning higher amount previously and now earns Rs. 30 to 40 per day. The wife has disputed that she is earning any amount, though according to her mother she was earning Rs. 400/- per month.
7. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the wife can be stated to be earning Rs. 400/- per month while the husband on his own showing, is earning more than Rs. 1,200/- per month. There are 3 minor children who require attention and maintenance from their parents. There is also no dispute to the fact that all the 3 minor children are staying with the wife. The husband has himself asserted that he is a registered medical practitioner and his income has gone down in the recent past. Thus, it was his obligation to produce before the Court requisite proof of his previous income and for the current period also. The husband has intentionally withheld such documents which would obviously be in his power and possession. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are summary proceedings and the Court normally relies upon the affidavits filed by the respective parties in support of their claims. It is true that wife has also not brought any positive evidence to show as to what was the income of the husband for ail this period but her statement has to be given some weightage because she had been staying with the husband and knowing his income from the profession. The profession
