Avdhesh Kumar vs Dhruvi Chandra

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. He submits, the appeal stands preferred against judgment dated 28th April, 2025 of the Family Court, directing maintenance pendente lite. The appeal was presented in time and also certified copy of formal order filed by supplementary affidavit on 21st July, 2025. Yet the appeal stands marked as defective.

He submits further, service has been made. Mr. Ganesh Shanker Patel, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf respondent. He hands up judgment dated 29th October, 2025 of the Family Court, rejecting appellant's petition under section 12 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The certified copy is handed back.

By our order dated 6th November, 2025 we had recorded that office report of 4th November, 2025 said, the certified copy had been kept in the file. As such regular number be allotted. Mr. Singh hands up English translation of impugned judgment with copy to Mr. Patel.

On query submission at the Bar is, the learned advocates are ready to argue the appeal. Mr. Singh submits, salary slip of his client stands disclosed at page-60 of the appeal papers. Net salary credited is Rs.34,196.85/-. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary reported in AIR 2017 SC 2383 had declared that not more than 25% of the net salary can be directed to be paid as maintenance pendente lite. In this case direction of Rs. 15,000/- out of net salary credited at 34,196.85/-, is almost 50%. The direction be modified in appeal, following Kalyan Dey Chowdhary (supra).

Mr. Patel submits, the direction should not be interfered with. The Family Court had gone into the facts and found that of the claim made by his client, only Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid as litigation expenses and Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. There was the marriage duly solemnized on 21st January, 2024 but shortly thereafter parties separated. His client has been compelled to live separately. Appellant did not provide for her maintenance and even after impugned judgment, no payment was made.

Perused impugned judgment dated 28th April, 2025. No documentary evidence was produced before the Family Court by appellant nor respondent. Rs. 80,000/- was alleged by respondent to be monthly income of appellant, who having not produced his salary slip before the Family Court, has disclosed at page-60 one payment advice dated 31st March, 2025 in respect of his salary. From it we see, gross salary is Rs. 74,542.85/-. It is close to the figure of Rs. 80,000/- alleged by respondent. Furthermore, there are deductions of, inter alia, loans taken by appellant. Those deductions and deduction of aggregate income tax of Rs. 3,060/-reduced the net income figure to aforesaid sum of Rs. 34,196.85/-Considering appellant did not produce any salary slip before the Family Court nor preceding or subsequent salary slips in relation to the disclosed slip dated 31st March, 2025 before us, there is adverse presumption against appellant that the deductions for repayment of loans are annual deductions. In the circumstances, respondent, who, we presume could not lay hands on appellant's salary slip, by alleging his income to be Rs. 80,000/- was more truthful before the Court.

In Kalyan Dey Chowdhary (supra), there was reference to an earlier case, where the direction amounted to 25% of the income of the other spouse. In view of above impression we have of appellant, we are unable to accept Rs. 34,196.95/- as appellant's net income. Directions for, litigation expenses at Rs. 20,000/- and maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 15,000/- per month appear to have been correctly deduced by the Family Court. Impugned judgment is confirmed.

The appeal does not bear merit. It is dismissed.