IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance – Sustenance of a woman does not and cannot mean mere survival – A woman, who is constrained to leave matrimonial house should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking modification of order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore in M.C.No.3726 of 2019 granting interim maintenance to the petitioner/wife at Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses at Rs.50,000/- for enhancement of the same to Rs.1,50,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.2,00,000/- as one time litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:—

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent, her husband. The two get married on 22-04-2016. On several allegations, it appears that after about six months of marriage the wife leaves the matrimonial house and begins to reside in her parental house. Long after the alleged separation, the respondent/husband registers a petition seeking annulment of marriage in M.C.No.3726 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner, upto the month of May 2020 claims that she was working and earning a salary of `35,000/- and due to onset of Covid-19 she was laid off and had no avocation to maintain herself. Therefore, she files an application before the concerned Court invoking Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at Rs.1,50,000/- per month and one time litigation expenses at Rs.2,00,000/-. The concerned Court by its order dated 26-08-2022 passes an order directing payment of interim maintenance at Rs.15,0000/- and one time litigation expenses at `50,000/-. It is this order that drives the wife to this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground that it is too meager to maintain herself.

3. Heard Smt.Jayna Kothari, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the concerned Court has grossly erred in granting a meager sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance notwithstanding the fact that the husband files his assets and liability statement which clearly depicts that his monthly salary is Rs.3,16,027/- apart from the income that derives from all other assets including fixed deposit that he has. Despite all this, the concerned Court grants the aforesaid maintenance on the ground that the wife is earning Rs.1,35,000/- per month. The learned senior counsel would submit that nowhere in the record it is indicated that the wife earns Rs.1,35,000/- per month. The petitioner/wife was earning Rs.35,000/- per month up to May 2020 and is now without avocation.

5. The learned senior counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that the wife is qualified, she can maintain herself and she does not need in any amount of maintenance from the hands of the husband as the separation had happened in the 2016, and after the husband initiates proceedings for divorce, the wife files the application under Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, if the wife could maintain herself for all the three years without any maintenance it is clear that the wife did not need maintenance at all. It is only to harass the respondent/husband the application under Section 24 of the Act is filed by the wife. He would submit that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held in the case of Dr. E. Shanthi v. Dr. H.K. Vasudev, ILR 2005 KAR 4981 which was filed by the wife being a Doctor could not claim interim maintenance as she was qualified and had to work and earn.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the petitioner/wife is entitled to enhancement / modification in maintenance from what is awarded by the concerned Court. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute and the petitioner leaving the matr