Himanshu vs Hema

L.N. Mittal, J.—Himanshu has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.02.2012 Annexure P-4 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar. Petitioner has filed divorce petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (in short, the Act) against his wife Hema-respondent. During pendency of the divorce petition, respondent-wife moved application u/s 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite for herself and minor daughter of the parties residing with the wife and also seeking litigation expenses. The wife alleged that the husband and his father and brother are running a family owned factory in Delhi earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and thus share of the husband is Rs. 50,000/- per month whereas the wife herself has no source of income.

The husband in his reply denied the averments of the wife and pleaded that he was doing private work hardly earning Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month and was residing in rented accommodation. It was also pleaded that wife herself was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by stitching work.

Learned District Judge vide impugned order Annexure P-4 directed the husband to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife for herself and the minor child. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

The petitioner-husband has not come to the Court with clean hands. Respondent-wife specifically pleaded that the husband is running a factory along with his father and brother. The husband while appearing in witness box admitted that his father is running a furnace in Delhi and husband''s brother is also working with the father. The husband went on to state that he did not even know the address of the said factory. This shows the dishonesty of the husband. On the other hand, his admission that his father and brother are running the factory corroborates the version of the wife that the husband is also running the said factory with his father and brother.

The husband alleged that he was doing private work but did not even specify the nature of his occupation or profession. The husband also alleged that he was hardly earning Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month and was residing in rented accommodation in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. This is intrinsically unreliable. The husband cannot reside in a rented accommodation in posh locality of Uttam Nagar, New Delhi out of his earning of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month only. In this context, it is also significant to mention that in the divorce petition as well as in the instant revision, the husband has mentioned himself to be resident of a house in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, but in alleged Panchayati compromise dated 30.05.2011 Annexure P-1 (allegedly effected during the pendency of the divorce petition), the husband mentioned himself to be resident of a house at Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. It is thus manifest that the petitioner has concealed more than what he has revealed. Alleged Panchayati compromise Annexure P-1 further reveals that husband''s father Laxman Dass also resides in the same house in Vishnu Garden which is the address of the husband himself mentioned in Annexure P-1. It would again falsify the version of the petitioner-husband that he is residing in rented accommodation in Uttam Nagar whereas in fact the petitioner is residing with his father in Vishnu Garden. It again goes to show that the petitioner is working and living with his father and brother and has taken a false plea that he is working and residing separately from his father and brother.

Counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that vide bank drafts Annexure P-2 dated 31.05.2011, the petitioner paid Rs. 1,25,000/- in all to respondent wife pursuant to mutual compromise Annexure P-1. However, no such payment has been mentioned in compromise Annexure P-1 nor it can be said that bank drafts Annexure P-2 which were prepared a day after alleged compromise Annexure P-1 were actually handed over to wife and were encashed by her. No such plea was even raised before the District Judge. It also cannot be said as to for what claim of the wife, the said amount was allegedly paid. Even otherwise, if the alleged compromise was effected during pendency of the divorce petition, the same would have been immediately submitted in the trial Court and the case would have been got disposed of in terms of the compromise. However, the parties continued to pursue the case after the alleged compromise. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month for the wife and the minor daughter residing with her cannot be said to be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the instant case noticed hereinbefore. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed in limine.