Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prerna Katia vs Dhruv Garg on 28 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) Civil Revision No.128 of 2013
Prerna Katia .....Petitioner
Versus
Dhruv Garg .....Respondent
(2) Civil Revision No.1135 of 2013
Dhruv Garg .....Petitioner
Versus
Prerna Katia .....Respondent
Date of Decision:28.03.2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate,
for the petitioner in C.R. No.128 of 2013 and
for the respondent in C.R.No.1135 of 2013.
Mr.Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocate,
for Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner in C.R.No.1135 of 2013 and
for the respondent in C.R. No.128 of 2013.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As, identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, bearing Civil Revision No.128 of 2013, titled as Prerna Katia Versus Dhruv Garg(for brevity "the 1st case") and Civil Revision No.1135 of 2013, titled as Dhruv Garg Versus Prerna Katia(for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same impugned order between the same parties, by way of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition.
Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 2
2. The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record is that, initially, Dhruv Garg, husband has instituted a petition against his wife Prerna Katia, for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
3. Sequelly, the wife moved an application(Annexure P-1) for the grant of Rs.1,50,000/- P.M. as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. The husband refuted the claim of the wife and filed the reply(Annexure P-2). The trial Judge partly accepted the application and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- P.M. as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to his wife, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2012(Annexure P-4 in both the petitions).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the wife has filed separate 1st petition for enhancement of the amount of maintenance pendente lite. At the same time, the husband has also moved separate 2nd petition, to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P-4), invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions in this context, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
6. As is evident from the record that, the marriage of the parties Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 3 was solemnized on 10.12.2006 according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a daughter, namely, Addvita, was born on 03.11.2009 out of their wedlock. Subsequently, the husband moved a petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Likewise, the wife has filed an application (Annexure P-1) for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter and she is solely dependent and to live on the mercy of her parents and other relatives. As regards, the income of the husband is concerned, she has pleaded as under:-
"That not only this, the petitioner is living a luxurious life and has got one BMW 3 series car worth Rs.30 lacs, BMW 5 series car worth Rs.45 lacs, Toyota Fortuner Car worth Rs.20 lacs, one Maruti SX4 worth Rs.8 lacs, one Swift Desire Car worth Rs.7 lacs and one Honda Civic Car worth Rs.12 lacs. All the cars are registered at Chandigarh and have got VIP numbers. Besides this, the petitioner is having two plots measuring 500 yards each in Silver City, Zirakpur worth Rs.2 crores, ancestral property in Ludhiana worth crores of rupees, Kothi in Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, measuring 2 kanals worth Rs.16 crores, land measuring 10 kanal in Rajpura worth Rs.2 crores. Besides this, the petitioner frequently goes abroad to spend holidays and has recently gone in the month of February and May 2011 to Bangkok and Singapore and other family members also go abroad frequently to spend holidays. Thus, from all angles, the petitioner as well as his family members belong to a high status family and spend lavishly on themselves. Besides this, the mother- in-law of the applicant-respondent as well as the sister-in-law possess the jewellery worth Rs.2 crores. On the other hand, the applicant- respondent does not possess anything and she is being made to starve and is living on mercy of her parents and other relatives. Not only this, the petitioner as well as his family members have sufficient funds at their Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 4 disposal but they have neither cared for the applicant-respondent nor the minor daughter and have also not even enquired about the welfare of the applicant or the infant daughter."
7. On the strength of aforesaid pleadings, the wife claimed the maintenance of maintenance pendente lite Rs.1,50,000/- lacs per month and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses, in the manner depicted here-in- above. The husband has stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the application, filed the reply(Annexure P-2) and prayed for its dismissal.
8. At the very outset, the celebrated argument of learned counsel for the husband that the minor daughter is not entitled to the maintenance u/s 24 of the Act, as claimed by the wife, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. It cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the wife and her minor child are also entitled to maintenance under Sections 24 & 26 of the Act, notwithstanding, the fact that the minor daughter is not a party in the divorce-petition or no such application was moved on her behalf. This matter is no more res integra and is now well- settled.
9. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Vikrant Arora Versus Shruti Mehra @ Palak Arora and another, in Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014, decided on 05.03.2014, which, in substance is as under:-
"A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that in case any one of the spouse has moved an application u/s 24 of the Act for interim maintenance pendente lite, the Court has the power/jurisdiction to grant maintenance not only to such spouse, but to children as well. In case, the interim maintenance pendente lite is only granted to any of the spouse, then, the same would be meaningless if it Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 5 does not provide for the maintenance of the children living with such a spouse unable to maintain himself or herself as the case may be. While deciding the application u/s 24 of the Act, the trial Court is duty bound to pass the interim order with regard to maintenance of minor children, as contemplated u/s 26 of the Act as well, even if the application for maintenance was made only u/s 24 and not u/s 26 of the Act. No separate application is required to be made u/s 26 of the Act. Since section 24 by nature is summary remedy provided for immediate relief and if that be the object, then, it does not stand to reason that the order u/s 24 cannot be passed directing the maintenance pendente lite to be paid to the minor child, who, in the instant case, is admittedly living with the wife. In the absence of any interim maintenance to the minor child, the maintenance pendente lite to the wife is meaningless, as in Hindu society, a mother cannot maintain herself without maintaining her minor child. She will never permit her minor child to die in starvation. Therefore, there is inherent inbuilt procedure u/ss 24 & 26 of the Act to grant interim maintenance pendente lite to minor child as well, irrespective of the fact that she is not a party in the divorce petition or no application u/s 26 of the Act was moved in this regard."
10. Now adverting to the determination of issue of adequate maintenance, as indicated here-in-above, the wife has filed an application for her maintenance and for the maintenance of her minor daughter & litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act, which postulates that, Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 6
11. A plain reading of this provision would reveal that the income of the petitioner and the income of the respondent are most essential, important components and carry significant meaning, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Although, the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are summary in nature and are required to be decided within a period of 60 days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be, but at the same time, the trial Court is legally obliged to prima facie come to the conclusion in regard to the respective income of the parties on the basis of material brought on record by them(parties). That means, unless & until, the trial Court came to a prima facie conclusion of the income of the relevant parties, it cannot otherwise vaguely grant the amount of maintenance pendente lite in a casual manner in this relevant connection.
12. Such, thus, being the legal position and material on record, now the sole controversy, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether any interference is warranted in the amount of maintenance granted, by virtue of the impugned order by the trial Court or not?
13. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative.
14. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the wife has only listed the assets/property owned by the husband in para 4 of her application(Annexure P-1), as reproduced here-in-above. She has not uttered a word with regard to his specific/actual income. So, in the absence of any specific averments of actual income of the husband and Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 7 prima facie proof thereof, the court was left with no option but to grant the maintenance pendente lite to her on the basis of income of her husband.
15. Therefore, in the instant case, taking into consideration the pointed peculiar facts, special circumstances and having placed reliance on the income tax returns of the husband, the trial Court came to the conclusion that his income is Rs.51,000/- per month and correctly granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife & her minor daughter and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, by means of impugned order (Annexure P-4), which, in substance, is as follows (paras 9, 11 & 12):-
"In this case, relationship of petitioner and applicant-respondent as husband and wife is admitted. It is also admitted that petitioner is working as Managing Director of Tricity Auto, Zirakpur and Director of Mandi Alloys, Mandi Gobindgarh. It is also established from the reply to the application and income tax returns placed on file that income of the petitioner is Rs.51,000/- per month. Though petitioner has claimed that applicant-respondent is having sufficient source of income to maintain herself as well as minor daughter as she is running boutique but he failed to produce on record any proof to show that applicant is partner in the boutique which is being run under the name and style of Chiffons and Silks by mother of the applicant-respondent. It is also admitted that from the wedlock of the applicant-respondent and petitioner, one daughter namely Addvita was born who is now aged three years. It is also admitted that daughter namely Addvita is now studying in a school. However, the petitioner could not established even prima-facie that applicant-respondent is having sufficient independent source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter Addvita.
In this case, applicant-respondent is having no independent source of income and is residing with her parents along with her minor daughter. The respondent is an able bodied person having income of Rs.51,000/- per month. Therefore, he is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and her minor daughter. Moreover, the quantum of maintenance pendente-lite is to be decided on following grounds:-Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 8
i.) Income and other properties of the applicant; ii.) Opposite party's income and other properties; iii.) Conduct of the party and amount in the opinion of Court which is just.
Considering the conduct of the applicant that she had removed the articles from the locker which was jointly operated by them. However, none of the party could give the details of the properties held by them. Considering the income of the petitioner as available on record i.e. Rs.51,000/- per month, the Court deems it fit to grant Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance pendente-lite and is ordered accordingly from the date of filing of the application. Further, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the applicant-respondent towards litigation expenses and the application is disposed of accordingly."
16. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-4 in both the petitions) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
17. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
18. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the main divorce-petition, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petitions are hereby dismissed as such. Rani Seema 2014.04.04 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.128 of 2013 & other case 9
Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main divorce-petition during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions only.
March 28, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No
Rani Seema
2014.04.04 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh