Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10670
DELHI HIGH COURT
NIDHI SUDAN – Appellant
Versus
MANISH KUMAR KHANNA – Respondent
MATAPP(FC)-231_2023
The obligation of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 24 HMA is not extinguished merely because the wife is earning. The Court must consider all relevant factors, including the wife's income, the husband's income, the status of the parties, and the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage, in determining the quantum of maintenance.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 24 - PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE - WIFE'S EARNING CAPACITY - RELEVANCE - STANDARD OF LIVING - STATUS OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE - ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST NON-CONTESTING RESPONDENT - INCOME ASSESSMENT - REASONABLE AND REALISTIC MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), claiming cruelty and desertion by the respondent-husband. She also filed an application under Section 24 HMA for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The respondent entered appearance but remained absent during the proceedings. The appellant claimed that she was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from her business and had a rental income of Rs.15,000/- per month. She also claimed expenses of Rs.36,066/- per month on the education and other expenses of the minor daughter in her custody. The respondent did not file an income and assets affidavit.
Finding of the Court:
The Family Court denied maintenance pendente lite to the wife, holding that she was capable of earning and maintaining herself. However, the Court directed the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor child from the date of filing of the application till the decision of the case. The Court also granted the wife litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's earning capacity is an absolute bar to the grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA?2. What factors are relevant in determining the quantum of maintenance pendente lite?3. Can an adverse inference be drawn against a non-contesting respondent in proceedings under Section 24 HMA?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The wife's earning capacity is not an absolute bar to the grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 HMA. The Court must consider the wife's income and the income of the respondent, as well as the status of the parties and the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage.2. The factors relevant in determining the quantum of maintenance pendente lite include the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, the wife's income and assets, the respondent's income and assets, and the standard of living the wife was accustomed to in the matrimonial home.3. An adverse inference can be drawn against a non-contesting respondent in proceedings under Section 24 HMA, particularly where the respondent has deliberately chosen not to contest the proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court modified the impugned order and directed the respondent to pay maintenance pendente lite to the wife @ Rs.15,000/- per month, in addition to the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for the minor child. The Court also directed the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance within the timeline directed by the Family Court.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023
Page 1 of 9
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2023
Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2023
+
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023
NIDHI SUDAN
..... Appellant
Through:
Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Mr.Varun Singh Ahuja
and Ms.Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates.
versus
MANISH KUMAR KHANNA
..... Respondent
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1.
The challenge in this appeal under Section 19(3) of Family Courts
Act, 1984 and Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, referred
to as „HMA‟) is to an order dated April 06, 2023 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, whereby the respondent-husband was directed to pay the
maintenance to the minor child @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of
filing of the application till the decision of the case, while the pendente lite
maintenance to the appellant wife was declined.
2.
In brief, the marriage between the appellant (petitioner before the
learned Trial Court) and the respondent was solemnized on September 02,
2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A female child was born out
of the wedlock on December 10, 2010. A petition for dissolution of marriage
under Sections 13(1)(ia) & (ib) HMA was preferred by the appellant on
September 13, 2019 claiming that the respondent had treated her with cruelty
and deserted her, constraining the appellant to live separately w.e.f.
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.12.2023
18:16:59
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023
Page 2 of 9
December, 2013. Also, an application under Section 24 HMA was filed
along with the petition claiming maintenance @ Rs.75,000/- per month for
the appellant and the minor daughter along with litigation expenses.
3.
Pursuant to summons issued by the Family Court, respondent entered
appearance on December 19, 2019 and submitted that without admitting
allegations in the appeal, he had no problem in giving divorce to the
appellant wife by way of mutual consent. He further admitted that they had a
child who has been studying in Jaipur and was in care and custody of the
appellant wife and sought time for giving his offer. Thereafter, respondent
remained absent on the next two dates. On account of absence of
respondent, learned Judge, Family Court, left with no other option, closed
the right to file written statement as well as reply to the application under
Section 24 HMA. Further, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte on April
04, 2022 and the matter was listed for ex-parte evidence of the
petitioner/appellant.
4.
For the purpose of application under Section 24 HMA, appellant, who
is MBA, LLB and professionally qualified in Gems and Gemology,
submitted that she started a business in 2008 under the name and style of
IDT Laboratory and was doing part-time work. After shifting to Jaipur, she
started full-time business and managed to earn Rs.40,000/- from the
business. The net worth of the business was disclosed as Rs.15 lacs and
gross profits at Rs.4 lacs per annum. In addition to the business, appellant
claimed rental income of Rs.15,000/- from immovable property, jointly
owned with her cousin. Apart from above, she held four FDRs of Rs.1 lac
each, amounting to Rs.4,26,021/- approximately. The monthly expenses on
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.12.2023
18:16:59
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023
Page 3 of 9
the education, stationery and entertainment of child were further claimed to
be Rs.36,066/- and total monthly expenditure at Rs.1,18,633/-.
5.
In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, it was submitted that
respondent husband owned a three bedroom duplex house with terrace rights
in South Delhi (i.e. H.No. 402, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, Kalkaji,
New Delhi). It was further averred that respondent was maintaining three
