IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance —No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of maintenance pendente lite.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J.—These two appeals arising out of order dated 20.9.19 passed by the Family Court No.2, Kota in Civil Misc. Case No.94/19, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The Appeal No.56/2020 has been filed by the appellant Nitesh Agarwal (husband) assailing the order granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent (wife) a sum of Rs.40,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/- each for two minor children Darsh and Mihit whereas, the appeal No.99/2020 is filed by the appellant Smt. Aarti for enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the Family Court.

3. The facts relevant are that Shri Nitesh Agarwal (husband) filed a petition against Smt. Aarti (wife) seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”). During the pendency of the petition, the wife filed an application under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the husband a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for herself and Rs.1,00,000/- each for her two minor sons Darsh and Mihit. That apart, she claimed litigation expenses a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in lump sum. The wife averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas as per income tax return, the husband is earning Rs.26,52,082/- per annum, however, his actual income from the firm Sitaram Radhakishan is Rs.80,00,000/- per month and he is also earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month as rental income from a multi-storey commercial building situated in Scheme No.54, Indore. The details of immovable properties owned by the husband and his bank balance were also set out in the application filed. No reply to the application preferred by the wife as aforesaid was filed by the husband, however, an application was filed on his behalf disclosing his income during the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as Rs.9,03,689/-, Rs.14,77,568/- and Rs.10,29,901/- respectively and taking a specific stand that keeping in view the details of the income furnished if appropriate order is passed by the Court awarding maintenance to his wife and minor children, he has no objection.

4. The application preferred by the wife was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 4.1.18, directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife for herself and Rs.8,000/- each for her two minor children.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.18 passed by the Family Court, the wife preferred an appeal being D.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3791/18 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 3.7.19 and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court No.2, Kota to decide the application filed under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act of 1955 afresh, with the directions in the following terms:

“The impugned order dated 4.1.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court No.2, Kota to decide the petition under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act afresh within three months from the date next fixed before it on production of certified copy of this order. Parties would be at liberty to submit any further document in rebuttal in support of their case. In the meanwhile, respondent shall continue to pay the amount of maintenance granted by the impugned order till any fresh order is passed by the Family Court No.2, Kota.”

6. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court while deciding the application preferred by the wife afresh, determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite as indicated above. The Family Court also directed the appellant husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent wife in lump sum towards the litigation expenses. Hence, these appeals.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant husband contended that the Family Court has seriously erred in determining the income of