Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikrant Arora vs Shruti Mehra @ Palak Arora & Anr on 5 March, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 593 (P.&H.)
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014
Date of Decision:05.03.2014
Vikrant Arora .....Petitioner
Versus
Shruti Mehra @ Palak Arora & Anr. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)
The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, Smt. Shruti Mehra @ Palak Arora respondent-wife and her minor daughter Lyasa of about two years, have instituted the application for maintenance pendente lite u/s 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") in the divorce petition. Petitioner-husband Vikrant Arora s/o Joginder Pal Arora contested their claim, filed the reply, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.
2. Taking into consideration the relationship between the parties, their status and income of petitioner-husband,, although the trial Court partly accepted the application for maintenance pendente lite and directed him to pay a sum of ` 10,000/- per month to his wife, but at the same time, the claim of maintenance of minor daughter Lyasa was Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 2 negated only on the ground that she was not a party in the divorce petition, by way of impugned order dated 3.2.2014 (Annexure P3).
3. Instead of making payment to the respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband has straightway jumped to prefer the present petition, to challenge the impugned order, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the trial Court committed the legal mistake and has awarded the excessive amount of maintenance pendente lite to respondent-wife, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that, relationship between the parties and the fact of their minor daughter Lyasa, are not in dispute. It is also not a matter of dispute that the respondent-wife is residing separately and maintaining her minor daughter. She has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas the petitioner is practicing as an Advocate at District Court, Panipat.
7. Sequelly, the trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-husband was running business under the name and style of M/s Vikram Udyog, Panipat, as well and other attending circumstances, granted an amount of `10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, by means of impugned order dated Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 3 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), which, in substance, is as under (paras 6 &
7) :-
"6. Indisputably, applicant No.1 is wife of respondent and has filed divorce petition. She along with her minor daughter i.e. applicant No.2 has filed this petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the divorce petition in which applicant No.2 is not a party. So, present application on behalf of applicant No.2 is dismissed. So far as applicant No.1 is concerned, indisputably she is residing separate from the respondent. Whether she has been turned out of matrimonial home or she is living separate from the respondent without any rhyme and reason will be decided during the course of trial of this case. She has claimed that she is unable to maintain herself and she has no source of income.
7. On the other hand, respondent claimed that she is doing private job and is taking classes of accountancy etc. Nothing has been produced on file by respondent to substantiate his plea. On the other hand, respondent was claimed to be running business under the name and style of M/s Vikram Udyog, Panipat. Respondent claimed that said business has since been closed and it was running in loss. Respondent did not produce any document to show that said firm stands closed. It shows that he is trying to conceal the said fact. His claim of practicing as an advocate at Panipat is also not substantiated by producing any document on the file. So considering totality of facts, reasonable needs of a woman having a minor daughter, high prices of commodities of daily use now a days, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- per month is granted to the applicant No.1 from the date of filing of the application. Besides this she will be entitled to get litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. Application is accordingly allowed."
8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective as it relates to the maintenance of wife and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. 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 petitioner, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-3) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 4
9. Be that as it may, as indicated here-in-above, the trial Court did not award any maintenance pendente lite to respondent No.2 Lyasa, minor daughter of the parties, only on the sole ground that she was not a party to the divorce petition.
10. Such thus being the position on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the minor child of the parties is entitled to the maintenance pendente lite, notwithstanding that she was not a party to the divorce petition or not ?
11. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative.
12. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that section 24 of the Act is a social/beneficial piece of legislation, enacted with a sole purpose to grant maintenance pendente lite to the party, who is unable to maintain herself/himself, so that they may not die in starvation, as the case may be. Here, to my mind, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error to deny the maintenance pendente lite to the minor child of the parties in this respect. The maintenance of wife u/s 24 of the Act includes the maintenance of her minor child as well. Likewise, Section 26 postulates that in any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of the minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 5 with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceedings for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made.
13. 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 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 Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.03.13 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1653 of 2014 6 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. Thus, to that extent, the impugned order (Annexure P3) cannot legally be sustained under the present set of circumstances. Since the respondent-wife has not challenged the impugned order in this relevant direction, so, it is left open for her to move a fresh appropriate application for interim maintenance of her minor child before the trial Court.
14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner-husband.
15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
March 05, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2014.03.13 11:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh