Manmohan Singh vs Kushwant Kaur

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge by virtue of which the petitioner was directed to pay an interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,500/- per month to the respondent/wife apart from payment of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 12,500/- which has been fixed by the learned Additional District Judge by way of an interim maintenance is on the basis of the fact that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month while as there is no finding to that effect and even if it is assumed that there is a finding, that is totally based on conjecture and surmises. It has been stated that previously there was a matrimonial litigation between the parties which was got compromised by the learned Additional District Judge on 22.2.2010 and by way of the said compromise, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards maintenance, which is continued to be paid by him. In addition to this, the petitioner was also directed to provide necessary grocery items for the purpose of maintaining the kitchen. The said order was being complied with. In any case, it has been stated that grocery items would not entail expenses of almost Rs. 7,500/- per month so as to result in payment of a total sum of Rs. 12,500/- per month to the respondent by way of interim maintenance.

Mr. J.P. Sengh, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has contested the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has taken the court through the impugned order. It has been contended by him that the impugned order which runs into 16 pages is not only a reasoned one but is also supported by number of judgments of the Apex Court and the High Court so far as the grant of interim maintenance is concerned. In any case, it has been stated that before the present interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,500/- per month was fixed, the learned trial court had also arrived at a specific finding that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 50,000/- per month as the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence to show his exact income and there is bound to be some guess work or a conjecture to creep in while fixing up an interim maintenance.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned order. I prima facie find merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is a speaking and a well-reasoned order which does not call for any interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The brief background of the case is that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 20.12.1992 according to Sikh rites and customs in Delhi. The parties were blessed with a son, who is stated to be studying in U.S.A. There was also a previous matrimonial litigation between the parties initiated by the petitioner by filing a petition bearing No. 180/2009 u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. In the said petition, the learned Additional District Judge on the application of the respondent/wife u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, had fixed the maintenance @ Rs. 13,000/- per month apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- vide a speaking order dated 16.1.2010. The reasons given by the court for fixing up the maintenance @ Rs. 13,000/- per month are reproduced herein below:-

The applicant wife has stated that the petitioner is having income of about Rs. 5 lakhs p.m. and is maintaining lavish lifestyle. On the other hand petitioner/husband has stated that his yearly income is Rs. 1.5 lacs only. Petitioner has admitted to own one car Indica, and also stated that he is managing the business of K.L.M. on behalf of his son who is studying in USA. He has admitted availing services of maid servant. He has admitted having passport and flying to various countries like USA, China & Bangkok though occasionally. He is also paying installment of bank loan of about Rs. 9,800/- p.m. therefore his claim that he is earning only Rs. 1.5 lakhs p.a. is not believable. The status and the lifestyle that the petitioner is maintaining clearly show that he must be spending much more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs p.a. on his own expenses, as about Rs. 10,000/- p.m. alone are being repaid by him to the bank as part of his installment. This is also supported from the fact that the petitioner is maintaining car, has credit card and availing services of maid servant. His son is admittedly also studying in America. The respondent/applicant on the other hand has stated that she is unemployed and not earning at the moment. The petitioner/husband has stated that she is entitled to U.S. $ 1500 p.m. as she is a green card holder and this amount is being given by the U.S. to its citizen as unemployment stipend. But there is no proof in this regard nor any document in respect of the same has been filed by the petitioner.

Subsequent thereto, the aforesaid matrimonial litigation was compromised and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month apart from grocery items were to be provided by the petitioner to the respondent. It may be pertinent here to mention that both the respondent and the petitioner are living in the same house though in different rooms. It has also been stated that after entering into compromise, the petitioner has stopped paying not only the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month but has also stopped running the kitchen by getting the grocery items. He had also initiated a fresh divorce petition on the ground of cruelty. It was in these proceedings that the respondent herein filed an application on 16.10.2010 for passing an order with regard to interim maintenance. The respondent had alleged that the petitioner was enjoying a luxurious life and was a man of means. It was stated that he has installed expensive LCDs, he has a plot of land at Rajpura Road, Panchsheel, Chandigarh and various bank accounts and other saving schemes and also has a rental income of Rs. 9,000/- per month. It was stated that his monthly income is Rs. 3 lacs and he is maintaining two cars. Apart from this, it was also stated that he is funding the education of his child, who is studying in U.S.A. The respondent/applicant had claimed that she is entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/-.

The petitioner contested the claim of the respondent and stated that he is only earning Rs. 12,500/- per month and so far as the other amenities or the assets are concerned, they were denied by the petitioner. it was stated by him that he is paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as agreed between the parties by way of maintenance and is also getting the necessary grocery items. Therefore, it was contended that there was no reason for the court to fix an amount of Rs. 12,500/- by way of an interim maintenance more so when the maintenance was being paid by the petitioner to the respondent and the only thing which was in issue was the payment on account of grocery items. The learned trial court took into consideration the pronouncements of this court and Apex Court in Sh. Sudhir Diwan Vs. Smt. Tripta Diwan and Another, and Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, respectively. This court and the Supreme Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, there is an invariably tendency of the wife to present inflated or exaggerated income of the husband as a consequence of which some guess work on the part of the court is permissible. It is in keeping with these pronouncements that the trial court assessed the income of the petitioner to be around Rs. 50,000/- per month. After assuming the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 50,000/- per month, the trial court permitted the petitioner to retain 3/4th of his net income and to pay 1/4th of the income, which comes to Rs. 12,500/- per month, to the respondent towards interim maintenance.

I have no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. I do not find any incorrectness, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order in fixing up the interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,500/- per month especially in the backdrop of the fact that the previous trial judge in the earlier matrimonial litigation had fixed the interim maintenance @ Rs. 13,000/- per month apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. In any case, these are two interim orders which were passed by the court during the interregnum when the parties were permitted to adduce evidence and get the order varied subsequent thereto. From the year 2011 when the order was passed, we are in the year 2013. The petitioner ought to have produced sufficient evidence before the trial court to have the order varied. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court granting interim maintenance to the respondent @ Rs. 12,500/- per month apart from litigation expenses @ Rs. 11,000/-. The petition is without any merits and the same is dismissed.