Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Sushil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Sushma - Respondent
CRR (F) 421 of 2024
Decided On : 25-09-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Interim maintenance is a provisional measure based on estimations and requires financial disclosures from both parties to ensure a fair assessment and prevent misrepresentation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The family court awarded interim maintenance considering the financial disparity and responsibilities of the parties, with the amount deemed reasonable given the circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the amount was excessive, based on presumptions about his income, and that he is suffering from chronic illness which limits his earning capacity. The petitioner also pointed out that the respondent-wife is employed and earning a salary, and that they live in the petitioner’s father’s house, which should influence the maintenance amount (!) .
The respondent argued that the wife and children have limited income and that the maintenance amount was calculated based on the petitioner’s income and expenses related to the children’s needs. The respondent also claimed that the petitioner is earning well through private practice (!) .
The court emphasized that interim maintenance is provisional and based on estimations, and that the final amount will be determined after the conclusion of the main proceedings (!) .
It was noted that the order was passed despite the petitioner not filing the required Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, which is essential for an accurate assessment of financial capacity. The failure to disclose financial information can lead to adverse inferences against the non-compliant party (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the amount of interim maintenance should be just and appropriate given the circumstances, and that the order was not excessive (!) .
The petition challenging the maintenance order was dismissed, with the court stating that the order was reasonable and that the proceedings should continue without influence from the observations made (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of timely disposal of interim maintenance applications and the necessity for parties to submit full financial disclosures to facilitate fair decisions (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the court maintained that interim maintenance is a provisional measure, subject to final adjudication, and the current order was appropriate given the facts of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.
Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani Camp Court Tosham (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘concerned Family Court’) praying for setting-aside of the said order. Vide the impugned order; the respondents (herein) have been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.7,000/-per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 to 4-minor children) to be paid by the petitioner (herein) from the date of application till final disposal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Family Court, while determining the quantum of interim maintenance, has acted on presumption while assessing the income of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that considering the modest income of the petitioner, who is only a farmer, he is unable to pay the excessive amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court. Learned counsel has further argued that the Family Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent-wife, is working in Anganwari Department and earning a salary of Rs.13,500/- per month. It has been further argued, that the respondents are living in the house of the father of the petitioner and hence the maintenance assessed by the Family Court is on the higher side. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent-wife has refused to live with the petitioner without any justifiable cause which further demonstrates that the respondent-wife has no justifiable grounds for seeking maintenance. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been battling with chronic disease which has severely impacted his physical and mental health & rendered him incapable of earning a livelihood or contributing to the financial needs of the family. Learned counsel has further argued that the Family Court ought to have considered this aspect before fastening the petitioner with the liability to pay such a large amount of interim maintenance to the respondents. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned order is patently illegal, perverse and suffers from material illegalities and infirmities and the same is liable to be set-aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application seeking interim maintenance as the respondent-wife has limited source of income to maintain herself and her minor children. Furthermore, the Family Court has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner; consideration of the expenditure incurred for the maintenance and education of the minor children i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 as also taken due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner is doing a private practice of Veterinary Livestock Development Assistance (VLDA) as he is a qualified VLDA and as such earning handsomely. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record.
5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., 2021(2) SCC 324; relevant whereof reads as under:-
1. The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days’ from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that application remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by vario
Interim maintenance is provisional and based on estimations, requiring financial disclosures to ensure fair assessment and prevent misrepresentation.
Interim maintenance under Section 125 must balance the wife's needs with the husband's financial obligations, considering both parties' incomes.
Interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is provisional and must balance the needs of the dependent spouse with the financial responsibilities of the other party, particularly when childr....
The court established that only statutory deductions from income are permissible when determining maintenance obligations, emphasizing the husband's duty to support dependents regardless of personal ....
The father's obligation to maintain his child is paramount and cannot be negated by the mother's financial status, emphasizing shared parental duties.
The husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and children, regardless of the wife's income, and interim maintenance is provisional, subject to final determination.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
