Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 792
2007(1) JLJ 404
Rajendra Menon, J.
Manju Raghuvanshi (Smt.) v. Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi
Writ Petition No.2461 of 2004 (Gwalior): against the order of
II Additional District Judge, Guna; Decided on 6.7.2006.
Subject
Maintenance - Enhancement of Maintenance
Act Referred
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.24
Headnote
Feeling aggrieved by the meagre amount of maintenance granted to the petitioner in comparison to the earning of the respondent husband, so also being aggrieved by the date from which the maintenance is granted, petitioner has filed this petition for enhancement of the maintenance amount, so also for granting her maintenance from the date when the application under section 24 was filed. [Para 2
Held : The petitioner by making a detailed averment in her application u/s 24 has indicated that the annual income of respondent is Rs.5,26,725/- and had indicated the source and the income derived from such source in her application, as reproduced hereinabove. In rebuttal respondent has not produced any evidence to discard the contention of the petitioner. [Para 8
Undoubtedly, the economic conditions of the parties are the most important factor to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance, the other factors including status of the parties, so also their conduct, no arithmetical formula is applicable for determination of the quantum of maintenance. The Court is required to take all the circumstances of the case into consideration and the broader guidelines mentioned hereinabove are to be applied. Under these circumstances, the amount of maintenance at Rs. four thousand per month is far too much on the lower side, even though petitioner has claimed the maintenance of Rs.21,946/-, in the facts and circumstances of the case, maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/ - per month would be a reasonable amount. AIR 1997 SC 3397 followed. 1986(II) MPWN 118, 1993(2) MPJR 325 and AIR 1988 Cal.98 relied on. [Para 12
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S.24 -- maintenance -- wife not guilty of delaying the case -- summoning of record necessary to prove her case -- maintenance should be fixed from the date of application. 1994 JLJ 725 (FB) relied on. [Paras 13 & 15
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.227 -- trial Court committing material irregularity and recording perverse finding in assessing income of husband -- interference is permissible. [Para 10
¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955& &/kkjk 14& &iRuh dks Hkj.kiks"k.k& &ek=k& &i{kdkjksa dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr& &lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ dkjd gS& 𝔦 }kjk #- 5 yk[k çfro"kZ ls vf/kd miktZu& &iRuh ekfld Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, #- 15]000@& dh gdnkj gSA
çR;FkhZ ifr ds miktZu dh rqyuk esa ;kph dks eatwj dh xbZ Hkj.kiks"k.k dh LoYi jde ls O;fFkr gksdj rFkk ftl fnukad ls Hkj.kiks"k.k eatwj fd;k x;k gS mlls Hkh O;fFkr gksdj ;kph us Hkj.kiks"k.k esa o`f) ds fy, rFkk mls ml fnukad ls tc /kkjk 24 ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby fd;k x;k Fkk] Hkj.kiks"k.k eatwj fd, tkus ds fy, Hkh ;g ;kfpdk Qkby dh gSA ¼iSjk 2½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph us /kkjk 24 ds v/khu vius vkosnu esa C;kSjs&okj çdFku dj crk;k gS fd çR;FkhZ dh okf"kZd vk; # 5]26]725@& gS rFkk vius vkosnu esa L=ksr vkSj ml L=ksr ls çkIr vk; minf‘kZr dh gS] tSlk fd ,rfLeuiwoZ çks)r gSA [kaMu esa çR;FkhZ us ;kph dk ladFku [kkfjt djus ds fy, dksbZ Hkh lk{; is‘k ugha fd;k gSA ¼iSjk 8½
fu%lansg] Hkj.kiks"k.k dh ek=k vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, fopkj;ksX; lcls egRoiw.kZ dkjd i{kdkjksa dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr gS] vU; dkjdksa esa i{kdkjksa dh çkfLFkfr vkSj mudk vkpj.k Hkh lfEefyr gS] Hkj.kiks"k.k dh ek=k dh lax.kuk ds fy, dksbZ Hkh xf.krh; lw= ykxw ugha gksrkA U;k;ky; }kjk ekeys dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS rFkk ,rfLeuiwoZ mfYyf[kr lkekU; ekxZn‘kZd fl)kar ykxw fd, tkuk gksrs gSaA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] #i;s pkj gtkj çfrekl dh nj ij Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jde vR;f/kd de gS] ;|fi ;kph us Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, #-21]946@& ek¡xs gSa] ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa #- 15]000@& çfrekl dh nj ls Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jde ;qfDr;qDr gksxhA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 3397 vuqlfjrA 1986¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 118] 1993¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj 325 rFkk , vkb vkj 1988 dy 98 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955& &/kkjk 24& &Hkj.kiks"k.k& &iRuh ekeys esa foyac dkfjr djus dh nks"kh ugha& &mldk i{kdFku lkfcr djus ds fy, vfHkys[k leu fd;k tkuk vko‘;d& &Hkj.kiks"k.k vkosnu ds fnukad ls fu;r fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1994 ts ,y ts 725 ¼iw.kZ U;k-½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 15½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq-227& &fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ifr dh vk; fu/kkZfjr djus esa rkfRod vfu;ferrk vkSj foi;ZLr fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr& &gLr{ksi vuqKs; gSA ¼iSjk 10½
B.K. Agrawal for petitioner.
1. The case was taken up for hearing at 11 a.m. and thereafter it was passed over and thereafter taken up for hearing in the second round even then none has appeared for the respondents. Considering the fact that this petition is by a woman claiming maintenance and the case was adjourned on 4.5.2006 when also none appeared for the respondents and is listed for final hearing, again today this Court has no option but to proceed with hearing of the case in the absence of the respondent.
2. Petitioner and respondent Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi were married on 30th May, 1991. However, after the marriage the relationship got strained and it is the case of the petitioner that because of cruelty and the consistent demand for dowry made by the respondent and his family members, petitioner had to go and stay with her parents. On the ground of cruelty, the respondent husband has filed an application Annexure P-1 in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Guna, in the year 2000 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking desolution of the marriage. Immediately on service of notice petitioner appeared and filed an application claiming maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The aforesaid application for maintenance has been decided by the impugned order and feeling aggrieved by the meagre amount of maintenance granted to the petitioner in comparison to the earning of the respondent husband, so also being aggrieved by the date from which the maintenance is granted, petitioner has filed this petition for enhancement of the maintenance amount, so also for granting her maintenance from the date when the application under section 24 was filed.
3. Shri B.K. Agrawal, learned counsel representing the petitioner inviting my attention to the application filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as contained in Annexure P-2 pointed out that from para three onwards specific particulars were given with regard to earning, property and assets of the respondent, which included his business transaction and it was the case of the petitioner that the annual earning of the respondent husband is Rs.5,26,725/- and accordingly, petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs.21,946/- per month. Accordingly, it is pointed out that even though elaborate detailed applications were filed claiming maintenance, a formal reply was submitted simply denying the averments made in the application. Thereafter, evidence were recorded, documents were exhibited and inspite of the fact that detailed materials were produced to show that the respondent was a affluent businessman with large agricultural land, a merge amount of Rs.4,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance. Taking me through the facts available on record, so also placing reliance on the following judgments, Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and others [AIR 1997 SC 3397], Smt. Archana Tiwari v. Yogendra Mohan Tiwari [1993(2) MPJR 325], Sarojbai (Smt.) v. Jai Kumar Jain [1994 JLJ 725 (Full Bench)], Nirmala Tiwari v. Shobharam Tiwari [1986(11) MPWN 118] and Chitra Sengupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta [AIR 1988 Cal. 98], Shri B.K. Agrawal argued that the amount of maintenance is on the lower side and contrary to the well settled principles laid down for grant of maintenance. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of the application and the reason given for grant of maintenance from the date of order is unsustainable. Bringing on record the various dates of hearing as contained in Annexure P-16, Shri Agrawal tried to establish that the petitioner had not sought adjournment in the case unnecessarily. The petitioner had sought adjournment only on two occasions whereas on all other occasions the case was adjourned for no cogent reasons which cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Shri Agrawal submitted that the respondent was not coming out with the true facts and if the petitioner was compelled to file applications for
