ORDER

Date : 25-04-2019 Heard Dr. N. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R.S. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent.

In this revision petition order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 130/2017 is put under challenge. The order under challenge was passed against an application filed by the wife respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and cost of the proceeding from the petitioner husband. The present petitioner is mainly aggrieved on non consideration of the evidence in respect of the income of the respondent wife by the court below while granting the maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that admittedly the respondent wife is a dental surgeon who attends hospitals of repute namely, Ayursundra and another. There is suppression of income by the respondent wife inasmuch as she produced the income tax return of the income she garnered from the hospital Ayursundra, but she failed to bring on record the income tax statements and the earnings from the clinic “Smile and Esthetic” situated at Ulubari. Referring to the depositions of the owner of the dental clinic “Smile and Esthetic”, in D.V. Case No. 59M/2017 as P.W. 3, Mr. Deka submits that the respondent wife borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 lacs from him before her marriage and the respondent started repaying her loan to the said owner where she has been working for a long time. The act of repayment of the loan is not disputed by the respondent wife which itself goes to show that she has a substantial income from the said dental clinic which she suppressed in bringing before the court below. The court below even if it was brought to its notice did not even consider the substantial income she derived from the said dental clinic. On the other hand, the learned court below disbelieved the income produced by the present petitioner husband before the court below and on its own call for the salary slip from the office wherein, the present petitioner is serving as an engineer. Referring to the ambit and scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Mr. Deka submits that the court below failed to appreciate the intent and purpose of Section 24 and as such the maintenance pendente lite as decided is not proper and he sought for interference of the impugned order.

In support of his submission, Mr. Deka relies Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs. The State and Anr.

downloaded in MANU/DE/2129/2010 and submits that under the prevalent laws including Hindu Marriage Act, a husband is supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of the income which he earns. But no law provides that a husband has to maintain his wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, moreso when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage.

The submission of Mr. Deka, is vehemently opposed and Ms. Choudhury submits that the respondent wife did not suppress her income inasmuch as though the petitioner husband is a serving engineer, he did not produce his salary slip nor income tax return. On the other hand, the respondent wife out of her own volition and in order to bring to the notice of the Court below the income she derives from her profession produced the tax return which is not sufficient to maintain herself. Admittedly the mother of the respondent wife is a pensioner whose pension is approximately about Rs.30,000/-35000/- per month. That cannot be a relevant fact to take into consideration by the court while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In order to sup