SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan Singh, J.
Dr. Seema —Appellant
versus
Dr. Alkesh Chaudhary —Respondent
C.M. Nos. 2284 of 2006 and 13056 of 2012 in Mat.App. 19 of 2004
Decided on 11.3.2014

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. R.K. Kapoor with Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Advocates
For the Respondent: None

IMPORTANT POINT
Wife is entitled to maintenance on the basis of income properties and status of her husband even after passing of decree of divorce.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955— Sections 24 and 25—Claim of maintenance and alimony— Mere grant of decree of divorce, will not disentitled wife from claiming the alimony—The proceeding under Section 25 are absolutely independent which is to be decided on merit—Where there was no sufficient and clear evidence to prove income of husband—In the circumstances that he was a recruited doctor earning much more than wife and also had large number of immovable and movable property, the husband directed to pay rupees 10000 per month to the wife. (Para 16, 18, 19 and 21)

       (2011 (7) Scale 741 relied on)

       Facts of the case

        Where divorce petition filed by husband/respondent was allowed and appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and she filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Then she filed application for restoration of application which was allowed. Wife also filed application for maintenance and expenses under Sections 23,24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act.

       Findings of the Court

        It was found that the respondent was Dr. and he had made investment of 60/70 lack and also purchased premises for his hospital and latest equipments costing more than Rs. 15 Crore and has also purchased latest Lasik Machine for Rs. 2 Crore and had also engaged three full time eye Surgeons. In such circumstances quantum of maintenance fixed at Rs. 10,000 per month. It was held that the wife was entitled to maintenance despite divorce.

       Result: Appeal Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Singh, J.—By this order I propose to decide the pending applications, being CM No.2284/2006 and CM No.13056/2012, filed by the appellant/applicant.

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the matter are that Dr.Seema and Dr.Alkesh Chaudhary were married on 17th April, 1992. A male child was born to them on 22nd May, 1996. The child is with the mother. A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent on 9th January, 1997. It was allowed on 5th February, 2004. Dr.Seema filed an appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 31st January, 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, Dr.Seema filed an application, being CM No.2284/2006 which was directed to be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal but while passing the judgment in the appeal, the said application remained undecided.

3. After the dismissal of the appeal, Dr.Seema filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, Dr.Seema moved an application, being CM No.12396/2011, for restoration of the pending application, being CM No.2284/2006. The said application was allowed by order dated 17th January, 2012. The appellant has also filed an application, being I.A. No.13056/2012, under Section 151 CPC seeking direction against the respondent to produce various documents.

4. Both the parties have also filed the written submissions. The respondent was himself absent at the time of hearing of the applications.

5. The relevant period to claim the maintenance by the appellant is 1st August, 1999 to 31st January, 2011 who filed application for maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 23 read with Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and read with Section 151 CPC. In para 3 of the application, it was stated that the appellant is out of job since August, 2005 and she needs maintenance. It was stated that the respondent has sufficient resources and monthly income and he would be in a position to pay the maintenance to the appellant at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from 1st August, 1999 to 31st July, 2005 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month for the period from 1st August, 2005 till she gets reasonable employment.

6. Regarding her non-employment, she filed an affidavit dated 7th July, 2012 pursuant to order dated 30th May, 2012. In the affidavit it is stated that she is a qualified medical doctor being MBBS with post graduate diploma in nuclear medicine. The appellant is not employed anywhere. Earlier she was working as nuclear medicine physician in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Delhi, on contract/tenure basis till July 2005. She worked as clinical assistant. She was getting salary of Rs.19,750/- per month. Now she is unable to do any work and is jobless/unemployed for last six years and eleven months, except for a period of 15 months. It is also stated in the affidavit that the appellant had a prolonged ill health due to gall bladder stones and undergone surgery, cholecystectomy for gall bladder stones in September, 2007. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in March 2008 and undergone long expensive treatment. At that time she was working part time due to ill health.

From 1st August, 2007 to 31st May, 2008 i.e. 10 months duration, she worked in Sun Imaging Centre, Y.K. Diagnostics, Delhi, received a professional fee of Rs.52,026/- per month, after deduction of TDS. She joined Sita Ram Bhartiya Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, on 10th July, 2008 but could not work and continue there because her health did not permit her. From 1st April, 2010 to 31st August, 2010 i.e. 5 months duration, she worked in Inmas, National Heart Institute, Delhi, and received a professional fee of Rs.45000/- per month, after deduction of TDS.

In the affidavit, she has also given the reasons for unemployment due to ill health, details of ailments etc. and also filed the documents to show h




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top