Delhi High Court
Durga Prasad Ray vs Meenu on 6 July, 2012
Author: M.L. Mehta
Bench: M.L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M)254/2012
Date of Decision: 06th July, 2012
DURGA PRASAD RAY ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta,Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajiv
Bajaj, Adv.
Versus
MEENU ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by ld. Judge- Family Courts in H.M.A. No.87/2010 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses @ Rs. 15,000/- were awarded to the respondent while disposing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as 'Act') filed by the respondent.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.11.1999 at Delhi and a girl and a boy were born from the wedlock. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. Consequently the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the CM (M) 254/2012 Page 1 of 4 Act. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is working as Chief Medical Officer at Hindu Rao Hospital and it was his responsibility to maintain his wife and female child who resides with her, the ld. Judge passed the impugned order granting maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent.
3. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is working as senior nurse at G.B. Pant Hospital and is earning reasonable salary and can maintain herself and the female child residing with her, while the petitioner is maintaining his parents as well as the male child who is in his custody. It has been submitted that the ld. Trial Court has wrongfully concluded that the petitioner is a person of high status and has awarded exorbitant amount of maintenance to the respondent against the spirit of Section 24 of the Act.
4. In Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain AIR 2010 SC 3540, deliberating on the issue of interim maintenance during pendency of litigation , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of CM (M) 254/2012 Page 2 of 4 making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute."(emphasis supplied by us).
5. In a case such as the present one, the salary of the petitioner as per the salary slip is Rs. 79,084/- which is quite a good amount and much more than the income of the respondent. Just because the respondent is working and drawing salary of about Rs. 36,000/- per month, that does not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility of maintenance of his wife and child. The intent of Section 24 of the Act is to provide support to the wife or husband so that the less financially sound spouse is not deterred by the financial constraints of the litigation.
6. The plea of the petitioner that he has the responsibility of maintaining his parents along with the male child is improbable as it has already been recorded by the trial Court that the parents of the petitioner are retired from highly prestigious positions and drawing handsome pensions apart from having various properties in their names located in posh colonies in Delhi. It is clear that the parents of the petitioner are certainly not dependent on him.
7. Nothing has been brought on record to refute the claim of the respondent that the petitioner is having various bank accounts with huge amount of savings in CM (M) 254/2012 Page 3 of 4 his name and owns luxurious cars and various credit cards and lives a lavish lifestyle. The petitioner has not produced the IT returns or the credit card bills to rebut these submissions made by the respondent and hence they must be presumed to be correct.
8. In view of the established financial soundness of the petitioner and huge gap between his income and that of the respondent and his responsibility towards the persons dependent on him, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the ld. trial Court. The benefit of the high status of the petitioner must be passed on to his wife and children and they are entitled to receive maintenance which is in consonance with their needs and financial status of the petitioner and to meet the litigation expenses. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge in passing the impugned order. Finding no merit in the pleas taken up by the petitioner, the petition is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JULY 06, 2012 ss/akb CM (M) 254/2012 Page 4 of 4