Savita vs Dharamvir Khatri

H.S. Bedi, J.—This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Petitions (Nos. 711 of 1992 and 976 of 1992), the first filed by the wife and the other by the husband, challenging by the husband, challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated January 10, 1992, whereby after determining the income of the respondent/husband at Rs. 1500/- per month, maintenance Pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month plus Rs. 1000/- as litigation charges was fixed by the Court.

The facts, as culled out from both the petitions, are as under :--

The respondent, herein, filed an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter called "the Act", claiming divorce from the petitioner on various grounds set out in it. An application u/s 24 of the Act was thereafter filed by the petitioner, claiming maintenance as also litigation expenses. In the said application, the petitioner alleged that the respondent was a practising a Adv. at Tis Hazari Court, Now Delhi, owned a number of shops in Green Park, New Delhi and had also received Rs. 25 lacs as compensation for his land acquired by the Government. It was also asserted that the respondent was maintaining a good life style and had a Maruti Car and two telephones at his disposal, it was alleged that the monthly income of the respondent/husband from various sources was more than Rs. 50,000/- and it was on that basis that- the petitioner claimed maintenance and litigation expenses.

In reply to the application tiled, the stand of the respondent was that he had been practising as an Adv. since 1986 as a Junior with his brother Shri Sultan Singh and was getting Rs. 700/- per month as his total emoluments. It is also stated that the telephones which were set up within the Chamber of the respondent, infact belonged to his brother. It was also denied that he was owner of a Maruti Car or any shop in Green Park, New Delhi, or that any land belonging to him had been acquired by the Government, as stated by the petitioner.

To meet these assertions, the petitioner filed various documents before the Matrimonial Court, so as to substantiate her plea that the respondent was owner or a Maruti Car No. DDC 8247, telephones at Tis Hazari Chamber, New Delhi, some land in village Narela and also of share in five shops in village Seikh Sarai, New Delhi.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments raised, the Trial Court found that it was not possible to come to a concrete conclusion as to the total income of the respondent but on the basis of guess-work, the monthly income of the respondent was determined at Rs. 3 500/- par month and maintenance Pendente lite and litigation expenses were allowed on that basis.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the petition filed by the wife deserves to succeed. It is the admitted case that the respondent/husband is a practising Advocate since 1986 and was sharing a Chamber in Tis Hazari with his brother Shri Sultan Singh. Although it has not been possible to connect the ownership of Car No. DDC 8247 with the respondent, yet it is apparent that the shops in village Sheikh Sarai had been purchased by the respondent several years ago. Mr. Patwalia has sought to argue that the shops are under litigation at the instance of one Mohd Yunus and as such the respondent had no income from these shops. This argument appears to be an after thought, as it is to be noted that at the initial stage the respondent had totally denied that the owned any shop and it was only when the documents in the form of sale deeds of the shops were produced by the petitioner that the argument now raised by Mr. Patwalia, was made.

Mr. Patwalia''s additional argument that the petitioner had an independent source of income of Rs. 6,000/- per month from her medical practice and was, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance, is also to be rejected. It would be noticed that this argument was based on the fact that she (petitioner) had also been working with Dr. Jugal Kishore Nursing Home prior to her marriage and had thereafter given up that job, but the said Nursing Home was willing to employ her, should she so desire. It has also been argued that the petitioner was doing private practice at her residence Barahi Road, Bahadurgarh, and was visiting Doctor at Prasad Nursing Home, Najafgarh, New Delhi, in the course of her work.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument as well and I feel that this is not liable to be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner is not working with Jugal Kishore Nursing Home at present and the mere assertion that she was doing private practice at her residence is not worthy of credence in the absence of better proof. It will also be noticed that even the Trial Court had found that the petitioner was not earning any thing and was, therefore, entitled to maintenance. Moreover, the parties are here in revision before me and I do not deem it fit to record a contrary finding on this pure question of fact.

Coming now to the quantum of maintenance that has been awarded by the Trial Court, I feel that it is not only paltry but absolutely unrealistic. The total income of the respondent, determined on the basis of guess work, as observed by the Trial Court, was Rs. 1500/- per month and this does not even reflect the salary of a Class IV employee these days. Moreover keeping in view the fact that the respondent-husband has been able to maintain a reasonable standard of life and is a practising Advocate at Tis Hazari Courts, at Delhi and the petitioner herself is also a person reasonable status, who had been employed at one stage on a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month by Jugal Kishore Nursing Home on the basis of a diploma in Homeopathy, some enhancement in the maintenance is called for. I do appreciate that in the absence of concrete evidence, the Court must employ some element of guess work and perhaps import some personal knowledge as well. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I determine the income of the respondent as Rs. 3,500/- per month and as such deem it fit to enhance the maintenance Pendente lite to Rs. 1200/- per month and litigation expenses to Rs. 2000/-.

With the order aforesaid, the present revision petition filed by the wife/petitioner is allowed, whereas that of the respondent is dismissed with costs, which are determined at Rs. 500/-.