Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner in CRP No. 2028 of 1989 who is the wife of the petitioner in CRP No. 1100 of 1989 filed OP No. 55 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali as an indigent person, claiming maintenance at Rs. 2000/- per month and for Rs. 500/-for residence and for other reliefs on the ground of desertion by her husband. Pending disposal of the above OP she filed an application IA No. 1679 of 1987 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 151 CPC for interim maintenance. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the wife but Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the husband, RWs. 1 and 2 are examined and Exs. B-1 and B-2 are marked. In the IA also the wife claimed maintenance at the same rate as in the main OP and in addition she claimed Rs. 15.000/-fowards legal expenses. The husband resisted the application on the ground that what has been stated in the petition is not correct and according to him except the earnings as a Lecturer, he has no other source of income, Ex. A-6 is the salary certificate. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-and he is also getting an amount of Rs. 550/- towards rent. Besides he has got some landed property and the income there from can reasonably be estimated at Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The Court below accordingly estimated the monthly income of the husband at Rs. 3,300/- and granted 1/5th of the total income as interim maintenance to the wife relying on a judgment in Smt. Sarojadevi v. Ashok Puri Goswami, (1987) II Civil Law Journal, 607 i.e. at Rs. 650/- towards maintenance and Rs. 150/- for residence. In addition, the lower Court also granted an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses. Aggrieved against the grant of interim maintenance and also legal expenses the husband filed CRP No. 1100 of 1989 and having not satisfied with the said interim maintenance the wife filed CRP No. 2028 of 1989.

11. This view has been followed by the Rajasthan High Court in Indar Mal v. Babu Lal, wherein the minor claimed interim maintenance on the strength of registered adoption deed. The High Court held that the son is entitled to the interim maintenance.

12. The Madras High Court in Subbayya Maniyagarar v. Kandaswami, AIR 1935 Madras 105 considered the question whether interim maintenance can be granted to the minors. On the principles of natural justice, the learned Judge found that the minor plaintiffs who are admittedly entitled to maintenance should not be allowed to starve while their partition suit is going on, and an order allowing the maintenance on a petition for their maintenance filed in the partition suit on their behalf is within the jurisdiction of the court under Section 151 C.P.C.

17. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, the lower Court has taken into consideration that 1/5th of the claim would be the reasonable amount for the grant of interim maintenance. Perhaps, the lower Court might have been led away by the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Katta Raghavulu v. Katta Bharathamma, 1975 ALT 357 dissenting from the view expressed by Rajasthan and Orissa High Courts and the observations in Mulla's treaties on Hindu Law repelled the contention of the appellant in that case that the respondent should not have been awarded more than one-fifth of the income towards interim maintenance. No where a restriction has been placed either under the Hindu Marriage Act or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act that one-fifth of the net income of the husband has to be granted. The principle of granting one-fifth of the net income of the husband cannot be imported in cases where we consider in a civil suit for maintenance. The parties in this case are admittedly governed by the Hindu Law and there is a valid marriage and the rate of maintenance only is in dispute. Generally the wife exaggerates the income of her husband while the husband tries to show lesser income and more responsibilities like maintenance of aged parents, unmarried brothers and unmarried sisters. When such differing claims are there, it is for the Court to strike a balance and see that reasonable maintenance shall be granted by taking into account the income potentialities of the husband. Unless it is found that excessive amount has been granted, the High Court should not interfere with the quantum. In this case, leaving alone the landed property, the husband is getting Rs. 2000/- as salary and Rs. 500/- as rent from the house. The husband has to maintain a separate establishment but whereas the wife in these circumstances may stay under the protection of her father or brother or other relations. The husband did not allege that the wife is earning something. The quantum must be decided on the facts of each case and it should in no way be a burdensome for the husband. The income potentialities of the husband, the status of the parties and their background prior to the marriage are some of the factors that have to be taken into consideration at the time of determining the quantum of interim maintenance. The interim maintenance granted shall not be taken into consideration at the time of the final disposal of the case. Therefore, considering the above factors, the interim maintenance granted by the lower Court at Rs. 650/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 150/- towards residence is neither too low nor too excess but it can be said that it is the bearest minimum that can be granted.

18. Sri Y. Sivarama Sastry, the learned counsel appearing for the husband, contended that the lower Court should not have granted interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition. The parties approach the Court after they fail in all their attempts for an amicable settlement. By the time they approached the Court, sufficient time might have already been spent and after their separation difficulties also might have been faced by the wife for sustenance in life. In this case since the marriage is admitted and both husband and wife are living separately and when the Court comes to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for interim maintenance the wife should not be allowed to starve while the petition is pending. The amount that is being granted is only a temporary measure or tentative arrangement to see that the wife may sustain to prosecute her case. The acts of Court ought not to prejudice or cause hardship to any party. The power to make an interim order is implicit and in-built in the grant of main relief. The normal practice that can be followed by the Court while granting interim maintenance pending disposal of the suit or an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P. C. is to grant interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition itself. It is relevant to notice Section 125 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads :