Balkrishna Sharma vs Chandralata Sharma

Amitava Roy, C.J.—Heard Mr. Balkrishna Sharma, appellant in person, who has, in details, narrated the facts and has argued the appeal exhaustively.

The facts, pertinent to be set out, are that the parties are married, and out of their marriage, which was solemnized at Bharatpur on 8.2.1996, they have a son, Madhan, aged, as on date, 16 years. The parties are living separately on and from 14.2.2003 because of their differences and the son is living with her mother, since then. The appellant, meanwhile, has filed an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as ''the Act'') seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, and the said proceeding is pending in the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur. During the pendency of the above proceeding, the respondent-wife and her son (represented by her) did file an application u/s 24 of the Act, praying for maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 14,000/- per month for them together with an amount of Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses for each date of attendance in court.

In her application, the respondent-wife stated that the appellant had deserted her and her son on and from 14.2.2003 without any justification, and that, since then, she, alongwith her minor son, are residing with her parents at Bharatpur. She further stated that she had no independent income, and thus, was unable to maintain herself and her minor son. She averred that the appellant was an Announcer at Akashwani earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. She also stated that in addition thereto, the appellant-husband did have a house at Jaipur, and that, was also the owner of agricultural lands, from which he had an additional income of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The appellant-husband, in his written statement, admitted the marriage and also owned the son. He also admitted that the respondent-wife and her son were living separately from him. He stated that meanwhile, on an order passed in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, hereafter referred to as ''Act 2005''), he has been paying an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to her and her son. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent was M.A., M.Ed./B.Ed. and was capable of earning her livelihood. He denied to be the owner of any agricultural land and pleaded that his income was, amongst others, utilized for the maintenance of his old parents. He alleged that the respondent-wife and her son had concealed material facts, and that, thus, the prayer ought to be rejected.

The learned court below, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, accepted the appellant-husband''s plea of paying an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and her son, on orders passed under the Act 2005, but concluded that though, as averred by the appellant, she could be an educated lady, there was no evidence to establish that she was employed. It was held that on the other hand, the appellant-husband was employed with the Akashwani and was receiving his pay and other emoluments. On a comparative evaluation of the mutual status, the learned court below was of the view that even if the respondent-wife and her son were in receipt of Rs. 6,000/- per month, they could be said to be dependent, for their sustenance, on the appellant. It held further that Rs. 6,000/- per month was not adequate enough for the maintenance of the respondent-wife and her son, and also to meet his expenses on education etc., more particularly, in view of increasing cost of living. On a consideration of these aspects, the learned court below directed the appellant-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife and her son respectively with effect from 1.5.2014. In addition, an amount of Rs. 1,100/- was directed to be paid by way of litigation expenses.

The appellant has argued that the assertion of the respondent-wife that she is unemployed and has no independent income to maintain herself and her son, being factually incorrect, the application ought to have been rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts.

According to him, he is presently earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, and that, he has to maintain his old parents. He has urged further that to his information, the respondent-wife is employed as LDC in the Sessions Court at Kota and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, and thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance for herself and her son. On being queried by this Court, he however, has not been able to produce any contemporaneous document to even prima facie prove the fact of employment of the respondent-wife as LDC and her income of Rs. 25,000/- or any other amount.

We have carefully considered the pleaded facts and the documents on record.

In course of the arguments, we have ascertained, from the appellant, that the minor son is living with the respondent-wife together with the latter''s parents. It has been admitted by him as well that the father of the respondent-wife has since retired from service. To reiterate, he has admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 30,000/-. The instant order has been passed on an application u/s 24 of the Act granting maintenance pendente lite in a divorce proceeding initiated by the appellant. As adverted to hereinabove, the learned court below did take note of the fact that meanwhile, the respondent-wife and her son are receiving Rs. 6,000/- by way of maintenance granted under the Act 2005. On an assessment of the rival pleadings and all relevant aspects, it however, held that this payment notwithstanding, having regard to the cost of living, and more importantly, the expenses relatable to the educational imperatives qua the son, additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- for the respondent-wife and Rs. 5,000/- for the son, per month, was required to be granted, in addition to the amount of Rs. 6,000/-. Though the impugned order was passed on 1.5.2014, the instant appeal has been instituted on 3.6.2014. There is no material to demonstrate convincingly, that either the respondent-wife is employed, as claimed by the appellant, or she is guilty of concealment of any fact with regard thereto or her income, as alleged. In course of the arguments as well, the appellant has not been able to produce any persuasive material to this effect or convince us to hold differently from the conclusions recorded by the learned court below.

Noticeably, when confronted by this Court, the appellant did admit that inspite of the order passed on 1.5.2014, till date, the same has not been complied with.

Be that as it may, on a cumulative consideration of all relevant aspects, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to entertain this appeal. It is thus dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.