Deepika vs Jatin Chaudhary

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana whereby allegedly the petitioner has been granted inadequate amount towards maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in the proceedings u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-husband filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ''the Act'') for dissolution of marriage between the parties by decree of divorce. The marriage of parties was solemnized on 21.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived together and consummated the marriage. From the marriage, a male child namely Kavya was born on 30.10.2007, who has been residing under the care, custody and guardianship of the petitioner. The petitioner was being turned out from her matrimonial home along with her child. The petitioner moved an application u/s 24 of the Act and sought Rs. 50,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses from the respondent-husband which was decided by learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) by awarding Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner and her child for their maintenance and Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner as one time litigation expenses, however, the petitioner claims that the same is inadequate and is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Hence, this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has no source of income from any corner and she is unable to maintain herself as well as her minor child whereas the respondent is working as Sales Manager in shipping company and drawing an handsome salary of Rs. 11,00,000/- per annum besides incentives. The learned counsel further contended that mother of the respondent has purchased a new car as is revealed from registration certificate (Annexure P-8) which shows that she is not dependent upon the respondent and his father has recently purchased a new plot in a posh colony. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner and her child are entitled to the maintenance more than that awarded vide impugned order.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the respondent has been drawing meagre salary of Rs. 20,000/- and he has to look after his old aged parents, being their sole son.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

The point for determination is as to what amount the petitioner is entitled as pendente lite maintenance. Admittedly, the parties have been living separately since January, 2012 and the respondent has been serving in a shipping company. Perusal of annexures P-6 and P-7 i.e. annual tax statement u/s 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Form 26AS) reveals that the respondent is earning Rs. 75,000/- per month approximately. Thus, this Court is of the view that maintenance so awarded deserves to be enhanced to the extent of one-third of salary of the respondent. Ordered accordingly. The respondent shall pay Rs. 25,000/- in total to the petitioner ( Rs. 15,000/- for petitioner-wife and Rs. 10,000/- for child) i.e. approximately 1/3rd of his salary from the date of filing of the application. The respondent is also ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner-wife as litigation expenses. In addition, school fee of the child shall also be paid by the respondent-husband. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms.