Sanganagouda vs Mukta

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.

Marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 04.05.1992. There being incompatibility, the parties are living separately. On 02.03.2012, the petitioner filed M.C. No. 32/2012 in the Court of Senior Civil Fudge, Gadag, to pass a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage. I.A. No. 1/2012 was field by respondent, on 15.12.2012, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act'') to award pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. Despite the statement of objections filed on 29.01.2013, I.A. No. 1/2012 having been allowed on 17.07.2014, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, from the date of petition was filed and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses, this writ petition was filed on 20.08.2014, to quash the said order and dismiss I.A. No. 1/2012 filed in the trial court.

Sri. Chandrashekhar P. Patil, learned advocate, contended that the interim maintenance awarded is highly excessive. He submitted that the petitioner has paid interim maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- per month, since 1997 till 2012 and in the circumstances, interference is called for, more particularly, with regard to the period from which the interim maintenance is payable. Learned advocate submitted that I.A. No. 1/2012 having been filed on 15.12.2012, direction issued to pay the interim maintenance from 02.03.2012 is wholly erroneous. He further submitted that Rs. 55,000/- having been paid in the trial court, the learned Family Judge has committed an error in not providing for deduction of the said amount, while passing the impugned order.

Sri. Santosh B. Mane, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand made submission in support of the finding recorded by the Court below, in the order impugned herein and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

Considered the rival contentions and perused the writ petition.

Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order calls for interference?

Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. It is clear therefrom, that in any proceedings under the Act, the spouse, who has no independent income, sufficient for her or for his support, may apply to the Court, to direct the other spouse, to pay the monthly maintenance. The Section confers wide discretion on the Court in the matter of passing an order for interim maintenance and when the Court passes an order, it has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the applicant''s own income. Thus, in the matter of fixing and passing an order of interim maintenance, the means of the parties and other relevant factors, like social status, should be kept in view. An order for payment of interim maintenance would operate only during the pendency of the case before the Matrimonial Court and hence, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court is unnecessary.

Indisputedly, the petitioner is working as Associate Professor and is drawing gross salary of more than Rs. 90,000/- per month. Out of the wedlock, a female child having been born, is under the care and custody of the mother-respondent. The interim maintenance awarded by the court below is towards the claim made by the respondent for herself and on behalf of the female child. The respondent is entitled to lead a life commensurate with the standard of living of the petitioner, who being an Associate Professor and drawing Rs. 90,000/-, has been leading a good life. The respondent cannot be asked to lead a life much lower than her status as the wife of an Associate Professor. Under the circumstances, the contention that the amount which has been awarded towards the maintenance of respondent and the child is excessive, is devoid of merit.

However, there being no dispute with regard to the payment of Rs. 55,000/- during the pendency of M.C. No. 32/2012 (later numbered as M.C. No. 26/2013), while paying arrears of maintenance, the petitioner is entitled to deduct the said sum. There being no dispute that the petitioner has not paid maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- from 02.03.2012, i.e., the date on which M.C. No. 32/2012 was filed, the liability to pay the maintenance would be from the date the said petition was filed, i.e., on 02.03.2012. The court below has not committed any error in directing the payment of maintenance from the date the petition was filed before it and the discretion exercised by the Court in fixing the date being not illegal, no interference in that regard is called for.

Since, the impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, no interference is warranted, except to clarify that Rs. 55,000/- paid, shall be taken note of while quantifying the arrears payable, with effect from 02.03.2012.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.