Gaurav Kohli vs Aditi Kohli

Alok Singh, J.—Both these petitions are filed assailing the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh, thereby directing the husband to pay pendente lite maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month and also to pay Rs. 8,800/- as litigation expenses.

Wife has filed Civil Revision No. 362 of 2010, which is for enhancement of the pendente lite maintenance, while the husband has file Civil Revision No. 7345 of 2010 for reduction of the pendente lite maintenance awarded to the wife. Since both the petitions are arising from the same identical order, hence, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, both the petitions are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

The brief facts of the present case are that husband has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against the wife in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. In those matrimonial proceedings, wife has filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-per month and also for awarding litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-.

According to learned Counsel for the husband, carry-home salary of the husband is approximately Rs. 1,16,000/-per month. Parties have no issue. Father of the husband is a retired Colonel and is receiving handsome pension. According to learned Counsel for the husband, parents of the husband are residing with him, hence he has liabilities to maintain them.

Since father of the husband is a retired Colonel and receiving handsome pension, hence, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that parents of the husband are depending upon the salary of the husband.

Learned Counsel for the wife states that the wife is not working at present and is not getting any income. While, according to learned Counsel for the husband, wife was employed in HDFC Bank earlier. Now husband is not in a position to tell as to whether wife is working somewhere or not. On being asked by this Court repeatedly, learned Counsel for the husband is not able to point out from the application filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or from the present petition filed before this Court as to what is the income of the wife. The only argument is that wife was working and it should be presumed that she is still working. I do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. In the absence of any pleadings and proof, it would not be safe to hold that the wife is gainfully employed at present.

Keeping in mind carry-home salary of approximately Rs. 1,16,000/-of the husband, in the opinion of this Court, wife is entitled for the pendente lite maintenance as per the status of the family of the husband. In the petition filed by the husband, he has stated that his monthly expenditure is approximately Rs. 37,000/-per month. If, according to the husband, his monthly expenditure is Rs. 37,000/-per month, hence, keeping in mind the status of the husband, in the opinion of this Court, wife is, at least, entitled for Rs. 25,000/- per month from the husband.

Both the petitions are disposed of with the directions that husband shall pay pendente lite maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty-five thousands) per month from the date of filing of application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

However, I do not find any ground to interfere on the question of litigation expenses awarded to the wife by the trial Court. Hence, the findings of the trial Court on the quantum of litigation expenses, are affirmed.

Entire arrears shall be paid by the husband on or before the next date of hearing before the trial Court, adjusting any amount already paid.