IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance—There should be grant of interim maintenance not only to see equal standard of maintenance of life by both wife and husband but also to ensure wife maintains a minimum standard of life to that of husband.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.—This C.M.P. is filed by the wife-Petitioner seeking appropriate direction for granting appropriate monthly maintenance in her favour in setting aside the order dated 17.04.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in I.A. No.284 of 2018 arising out of C.P. No.54 of 2016.

2. Brief fact involving the case is that the wife-Petitioner married the husband-Opposite Party on 17.02.2009. After solemnization of marriage both the husband and wife stayed together at Mumbai. At the time of marriage the husband was working as AGM, Grade-C in Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and after some time the wife also got a job at Mumbai in UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. with Rs.50,688/- salary per month. While the matter stood thus, on being transferred to Bhubaneswar the husband instituted a Civil Proceeding bearing C.P. No.54 of 2016 U/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act involving various allegations against the wife-Petitioner. Upon receipt of notice in the proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife on her appearance resisted all the allegations made therein. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding the wife- Petitioner filed an application U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur seeking monthly interim maintenance as well as litigation expenses. In filing application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wife while disclosing that she is also an earner being an employee under UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd., in claiming monthly maintenance at least @ Rs.30,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards litigation expenses, the wife in paragraph-5 claimed the husband being an Officer in Reserve Bank of India is getting monthly salary around Rs.1,30,000/- per month. In support of her case, the wife has also disclosed in paragraph-4 that her earning is at a very lower side and for desertion by husband she is compelled to take independent accommodation. For her accommodation purpose in the city like Bombay, claimed she is not only required to spend a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards house rent further a sum of Rs,3,000/- towards electricity charges, besides, she used to spent a sum of Rs.1,500.- at least per day towards car hiring charges to move between her rented house and office premises.

3. It appears, on being noticed in the Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act proceeding instituted by the wife-Petitioner the husband-Opposite Party appearing therein averred that though the marriage between them is admitted, the wife-Petitioner put the husband into untold harassment and misbehaved causing physical and mental torture to him. It is further claimed by the husband therein that the expenses narrated by the wife-Petitioner was more exaggerated and due to the torture imparted by the wife Petitioner, he got compelled to institute the aforesaid civil proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. From the objection of the husband to the proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it appears, while husband claiming the wife earning a sum of Rs. 65,000/- per month but husband did not volunteer regarding his income nor disputed the submission of the wife on his income. The trial court coming to consider the rival claims, by the impugned order dated 17.04.2019 however decided the matter solely on the basis of a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury -Vrs.- Rita Dey Chowdhury, reported in AIR 2017 (SC) 2383 where in paragraph-16 the Hon’ble Apex Court appears to have held that there should not be grant of maintenance less than 25% of the monthly salary of the husband. It is here taking this decision into account and keeping in view the salary earned by the wife, the trial court has come to observe since the wife is already in the earning of more than 25% of the husband’s income, she need not be entitled to any further maintenance.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order in the refusal of the inter