Harminder Kaur vs Harvinder Singh Baweja

J.P. Singh, J.—This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions.

These petitions u/s 115, CPC filed by parties are directed against the order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the wife and her child and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved both the parties have challenged the said order. Husband says that no maintenance and no litigation expenses be awarded whereas the wife seeks enhancement of maintenance expenses and litigation expenses.

I have heard Mr. H.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the husband and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Counsel for the wife and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the files.

Briefly, the facts are that Mr. Harvinder Singh married Harminder Kaur on 7.5.1995 at Delhi. A female child was born on 14.3.1996. The husband filed petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. The wife moved an application under Sections 24/26, Hindu Marriage Act claiming maintenance for herself and the child. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 8,000/- for the child and Rs. 51,000/- as litigation expenses. The child is about 9 years old and is school going.

The husband filed reply opposing the petition. Negotiations for amicable settlement were made but failed. The learned ADJ granted maintenance @ Rs. 4,500/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses vide order dated 24.12.2004.

Learned Counsel for the husband has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has not properly appreciated the documents on record and has failed to examine that the wife had concealed her true income and has submitted that she does not deserve any maintenance either for herself or the child because she is a dental surgeon and running her clinic on the ground floor of the same house and is having very good income. She also has a laboratory and was saving Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per year in PPF (Public Provident Fund). She has inflated expenses of her clinic and the lab. While learned Counsel for the wife has submitted that maintenance fixed by the learned ADJ was on the lower side keeping in view the income of the husband and that her income has gone down due to acts of commission and omission of the husband.

Learned Counsel for the wife has contended that the husband is a Sr. Scientist earning more than Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and having modern and luxurious amenities. He had neglected not only the wife but the child as well. Therefore, wife was entitled for Rs. 10,000/- for her maintenance and Rs. 8,000/- for the minor child and at least Rs. 31,000/- as litigation expenses.

The learned ADJ after mentioning the contentions of both the parties and the plea of the husband that he was ready to maintain the child provided custody of the child was given to him and that a petition for custody is already pending under the Guardians and Wards Act. Learned trial Judge has also referred to the incomes and savings of each party. According to the salary slip of the husband, his total pay is Rs. 30,436/- out of which Rs. 19,296/- is deducted on various accounts in which Rs. 5,000/- is the provident fund, Rs. 120 for CGHS and the learned Trial Court assessed his income at Rs. 25,000/-per month. The Trial Court also noted that the wife was paying Rs. 30,000/- to her employees to run the clinic and she has to spend money on the laboratory also. Her income returns show her income as Rs. 8,000/- per month. Keeping in view the contention of the parties, the prima facie evidence and the precedents the learned ADJ has assessed her income to be about Rs. 16,000/- and odd.

Lastly, the Trial Court opined that it is the duty of both the parents to maintain the child when both the parties are earning. So, the above mentioned maintenance was fixed and in the last line of the operative portion, the Trial Court observed that after payment of Rs. 4,500/- by the husband to the wife and child both the parties will be left with almost equal income i.e. Rs. 20,500/- and has also clarified that if the wife tried to delay the proceedings then Court could suspend the maintenance.

Learned Counsel for the husband has tried to go into the minute details of the income and expenditure of the parties and has stated that the husband has to look after his old parents, though admittedly he has another brother also. While learned Counsel for the wife has highlighted as to how the wife has to face a large number of Court cases and then there are obstructions and annoyance being created by the husband in her practice because he and his parents are living on first floor and the basement is also with them. Such situation has ruined her practice. Needless to say that while disposing of an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Court has only to take a prima facie view regarding the income and expenditure of the parties and has to fix the maintenance depending upon the status, family background, qualifications and social circle, etc. Considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned order. The learned trial Judge has based his order on established precedents. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Copy of this order be placed on CRP No. 51/2005.