Gurbhej Singh vs Preeti Kaur

Aruna Suresh, J

C.M. (Main) No. 537/2009 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 8108/2009 (stay) & 1987/2010 (Under Section 24 H.M. Act)

Under challenge in this petition is the order of the Additional District Judge dated 23.03.2009, whereby on an application of Respondent wife filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''), he assessed income of Petitioner husband at Rs. 50,000/- per month and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Respondent and also directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/- as litigation expenses.

Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that Petitioner belongs to a lower middle class family and earns his livelihood as a fortune teller and by selling glass bangles, Rashi Nag, etc. and lives in a joint family and that he has been visiting abroad with his father and brother on a tourist visa and not for any business purpose. He suffered serious injuries and is not capable of earning anything because of his inability to walk properly. He further submitted that Respondent is running her own boutique at her residence and is earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month. He denied that Petitioner is engaged in the whole sale business of selling precious stones, gems etc. His submissions have been refuted by Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, counsel for the Respondent.

Petitioner had placed on record his income tax return for the assessment year of 2007-2008, before the Trial Court, according to which his annual income is shown at Rs. 1,12,600/- and it is under the Head ''Salaries from Rashmi Gems & Stone, Profits and Gains from Business and profession, commission for sale of precious stone''.

His Bank statement of account, produced before the Trial Court, indicate that in the beginning of January, 2008 he had a balance of Rs. 3,84,272/- in his account. He visited Singapore, Switzerland from 15.6.2006 to 27.7.2006 and from 22.3.2006 to 21.6.2006; Germany in 2006 and Netherlands on 15.1.2008 and 15.9.2008. The Court took into consideration all these documents to come to the conclusion that his income was around Rs. 50,000/- per month.

Petitioner does not dispute that he had visited abroad. But he has claimed that he went with his father and brother, at the expenses of his father on a tourist visa. Copies of the visas placed on record indicate that Petitioner visited above-said countries on a short visit for tourism purposes and it was made clear that it was not valid for employment. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is difficult to find out if Petitioner had visited abroad for the purposes of his business. As per the income tax return, he is taxed as a salaried person and his income has been computed accordingly. He had some commission from sale of precious stones and his gross total income is shown to be at Rs. 1,12,600/-. Even if it is assumed that Petitioner is a salaried man and has some income from sale of precious stones, etc. the basis of assessment of his income at Rs. 50,000/- per month by the Trial Court seems to be incorrect.

In ''K. Lalchandani v. Menu Lalchandani 1997 (VII) AD (Delhi) 44'' it was observed in para 9 as under:

It cannot be said that the Court has only to consider the bare minimum requirements of the wife and the children but they have to put almost at the same position as they would have enjoyed had there been no separation between the spouses. It need hardly be said that the wife and the children have to be put on the same position as the petitioner/husband/father and the amount of maintenance to be awarded Under Sections 24 - 26 of the Act has to be in tune with their status and the mode of living to which they were used to before separation between the spouses and the wife and the children accorded the same standard of living which they enjoyed till the date of separation. It may also be seen that there are as many as 15 litigations relating to the properties between the petitioner and the respondent. It cannot be again said that the litigation in the present days is a costly proposition. The amount with the respondent/wife would obviously be spent in these litigations and therefore, she cannot be said to possess independent income sufficient for the support and the necessary expenses of these proceedings. A broad view of the facts emerging from the record has to be taken for the purpose of striking a just balance in awarding the amount pendente lite u/s 24 of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances, emerging from the record.

Considering the present financial as well as physical status of the Petitioner, his income is reasonably assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per month.

Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioner shall pay maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the initial application i.e. 23.10.2008 besides litigation expenses of Rs. 8,000/-. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 23.03.2009 stands modified accordingly.

Arrears of maintenance shall be cleared by the Petitioner within two months in two equal installments beginning from 1st June, 2010. Petitioner is entitled to adjustment of any payment already made to the Respondent towards maintenance.

Attested copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court forthwith.