Delhi High Court
K. Lalchandani vs Meenu Lalchandani on 1 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997VIAD(DELHI)44, 68(1997)DLT712, II(1997)DMC363
Author: N.G. Nandi
Bench: N.G. Nandi
JUDGMENT N.G. Nandi, J.
(1) These two cross civil revision petitions under Section 115, Cpc arise out of the order dated 6.7.1996 passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 20/94 under Sections 24-26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") thereby awarding maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 per month to the respondent/wife Smt.Meenu Lalchandani and three minor children from 4.11.1990 to 12.4.1994.
(2) The petitioner/husband has challenged the aforesaid order being aggrieved with the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/ per month u/Secs.24-26 of the Act whereas the respondent/wife has challenged the said order being aggrieved with the partial grant of her prayer.
(3) It is not disputed that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10.9.1967; that three daughters and one son have been born to the respondent/wife through the petitioner / husband during the wedlock; that the spouses parted company on 18.8.90; that the petitioner/husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage. The respondent/wife applied under Section 24 of the Act and prayed for maintenance pendente lite for herself @ Rs. 1 l,700.00 per month, Rs. 15,000.00 for her gynecological operation, Rs. 4,500.00 as maintenance for the three minor children and Rs. 10,000.00 as litigation expenses. The learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, by his order dated 6.7.1996 directed the payment of maintenance pendente lited Rs. 12,000.00 per month from 4.11.1990 to 12.4.1994. Both the petitioner and the respondent have assailed this order in these revision petitions.
(4) It i.s submitted by Mr. Luthra, learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband that as far as Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, there is no question of moral duty; that the intention of Section 24 of the Act is that the maintenance pendente lite be provided to the spouse who does not have sufficient income to maintain/support himself or herself, as the case may be; that the respondent/wife is possessed of more than sufficient means; that at present there is only one minor child; that in 1990, two daughters and one son were minor; that the respondent/wife has about Rs. 10.00 lakhs which cannot be ignored; that for one minor child, maintenance @ Rs. 500.00 per month u/Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been awarded and which is being complied with; that there is no specific rationale and the order under challenge is only on conjunctures; that the grant of maintenance pendente lite has to be subject to the petitioner's income and the same has to be reasonable; that the order of maintenance @ Rs. 12,000.00 per month for the maintenance of mother and three children is fallacious; that the mother and the children have been living in the same house which is a joint house of the respondent and the petitioner; that the petitioner/ husband has been living in the rented premises and that the balance sheet of the year 1989-90 suggests income of the Company and not that of the petitioner.
(5) As against this, it is submitted by Mr. K.C. Dewan, learned Counsel for the respondent/wife that there is no basis for the respondent/wife having Rs. 10,00,000.00 on the date of the petition; that only eldest daughter is earning Rs. 3,500.00 per month and there are five members to be maintained with no income; that the petitioner/husband disposed of two properties in 1990; that the respondent/ wife and the minor children should be provided the same standard of living to which they are used to while with the petitioner/ respondent; that the balance sheet of the year 1989-90 suggests the income of the petitioner/husband; that income tax is not payable on the income of agency business; that the petitioner/husband has been earning about Rs. 8.00 lakhs per year; that three daughters have to be got married; that no interference is called for in the order passed by the lower Court; that only one child is getting maintenance u/Section 125, Cr.P.C. @ Rs. 500.00 per month; that the assets, which the respondent/wife had, have been utilised for the family purposes.
(6) In paras 14 and 15 of the reply to the application under Sections 24-26 of the Act, the petitioner/husband has admitted the withdrawal of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and stated to have invested in the Company further admitting the withdrawal from the account No. 3476 in Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Ltd., Madras, also stated to have invested the said amount in the business of the Company, further suggested from the reply is the withdrawal of the amount from Bank Account No. 1274, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras, accounts No. 10511 and 50512, both in Indian Bank, A-3, St. Francis, Janakpuri, New Delhi amounting to Rs. 16,986.50p" Rs. 26,018.05p. and Rs. l,25,000.00 respectively. These are admitted withdrawals. It is also stated in the reply that amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been withdrawn from the bank account of Bank of India and said to have been invested in the business of the Company. This would suggest that these funds were available with the respondent/ husband in the year 1990. According to the respondent/wife the petitioner/ husband is also having an additional income of about Rs. 10,000.00 to Rs. 20,000 .00 and according to her Monika Engineering International Pvt. Ltd. was doing a business worth Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs per year and that the resources have been diverted to the new Company Lalchandani & Associates.
(7) It is suggested from the record that the petitioner and the respondent were jointly associated in the business of Monika Engineering International Pvt. Ltd. since early 1980s when Monika Engg. International (Pvt) Ltd. was floated and the respondent/wife is in know of the details of the income of the said Company and the petitioner. It is also suggested that in a short time, sizable wealth has been amasked.
(8) The respondent/wife is admittedly residing in the house, which is in the joint name of the petitioner and the respondent, wherein she has been living with her three daughters and one son, one daughter major. It has been the submission of Mr. Luthra, Counsel for the petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife has about Rs. 10.00 lakhs with her. At this juncture all what could be said is that this is just an allegation. There is also nothing at the same time to suggest, that she has any rental income from the part of the house wherein she is residing with her children. It may be appreciated that all incidental expenses like electricity bill, house-tax, water charges, minor repairing etc. has to be born by the respondent/wife. It is suggested from the record that the petitioner/husband is financially better placed than the respondent/wife and the children. It is suggested that the petitioner/ husband has been having a sizable income, as suggested from the record, especially from the business also considering the amount that he has withdrawn from the Bank accounts from time to time. It is not suggested at the same time that the petitioner/ husband has any other financial liability meaning thereby that whatever he earns and he possesses, is entirely at his disposal.
(9) It cannot be said that the Court has only to consider the bare minimum requirements of the wife and the children but they have to be put almost at the same position as they would have enjoyed had there been no separation between the spouses. It need hardly be said that the wife and the children have to be put on the same position as the petitioner/husband /father and the amount of maintenance to be awarded u / Sees. 24-26 of the Act has to be in tune with their status and the mode of living to which they were used to before separation between the spouses and the wife and the children accorded the same standard of living which they enjoyed till the date of separation. It may also be seen that there are as many as 15 litigations relating to the properties between the petitioner and the respondent. It cannot be again said that the litigation in the present days is a costly proposition. The amount with the respondent/wife would obviously be spent in these litigations and, therefore, she cannot be said to possess independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of these proceedings. A broad view of the facts emerging from the record has to be taken for the purpose of striking a just balance in award ing the a mount pendente lite u / Section 24 of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances, emerging from the record.
(10) It is suggested from the record of the lower Court that the respondent/wife has to maintain herself and three minor children - two minor daughters and one minor son, one of whom is getting Rs. 500 / per month by way of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The eldest daughter is admittedly earning Rs. 3,500.00 per month as she has gainfully employed herself. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as pointed out above, the order granting maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act @ Rs. 12,000.00 per month for respondent arid three minor children - two daughters and one son, appears to be excessive and unreasonable inasmuch as even in order to maintain the standard of life to which they were used to while with the petitioner/husband. In my opinion, an amount of Rs. 8,000.00 per month by way of pendente lite maintenance and the expenses under Section 24 of the Act would be a just and reasonable amount considering the income of the petitioner/husband, as suggested from the record. The order granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 12,000.00 per month for the maintenance of the petitioner and three minor children needs to be interfered with being unreasonable.
(11) In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition No. 736/96 deserves to be allowed partly to the extent pointed out above whereas the Civil Revision Petition No. 787/96 deserves to be dismissed as there is no question/scope for upward revision of the amount of maintenance pendente lite. On the contrary, as pointed out above, it is suggested from the record that there is need to revise the order passed under Section 24 of the Act downward to the extent pointed out above.
(12) In the result. Civil Revision Petition No. 736/96 is partly allowed. The amount of pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is revised and reduced to Rs. 8,000.00 per moth instead of Rs. 12,000.00 per month for the period covered in the order dated 6.7.1996 of the lower Court whereas Civil Revision Petition No. 787/96 is dismissed.
(13) Both the revision petitions disposed of as above.