Sh. Ravi Dhingra vs Smt. Sangeeta Dhingra

J.M. Malik, J.—The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2006, while deciding the application u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granted a total amount of Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance for the applicant wife and her minor daughter against the husband. Aggrieved by that order husband/petitioner has preferred this petition.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He pointed out that petitioner filed salary certificate dated 01.06.2006, which reveals that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 6,600/- per month. He pointed out that the document produced by the respondent/wife showing his monthly income at Rs. 16,000/- per month vide letter dated 22.01.2004 is forged one.

This is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working as Records with Grammy Digital Audio Co.

There is certain aura of inconsistency in the various certificates issued by Grammy Digital Audio Co. Letter dated 01.06.2006 goes to show that the petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 6,600/- per month. Another letter dated 01.06.2006 issued by Grammy Digital Audio Co. reveals that he was drawing salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month only. Letter dated 22.01.2004 depicts that he was drawing salary in the sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month. All these certificates have bewildered the court.

Letter dated 25.07.2007 sent by Grammy Digital Audio Co. itself goes to show that signatures of the authorised representative which appear on letter dated 22.01.2004, mentioned in last preceding para, appeared to be correct, however, it wrongly mentioned the salary of Ravi Dhingra petitioner as Rs. 16,000/- per month. It is difficult to fathom when the signatures of the authorised signatory are not disputed, how does it lie in the mouth of Grammy Digital Audio Co. to say that he was not earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. It is apparent that Grammy Digital Audio Co. is trying to suppress the truth.

Even, if it is assumed that the salary of Ravi Dhingra petitioner is Rs. 6,600/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per month, in that eventuality, too, the order passed by the lower court cannot be faulted. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance allowance for two persons does not appear to be adequate keeping in view today''s price index. It was not argued that the petitioner was not well bodied person or is unable to maintain his wife and daughter. When enquired from the counsel for the petitioner during the arguments, he did not disclose the educational qualifications of the petitioner. Even peons are getting salary more than Rs. 6,000/- or Rs. 6,600/- per month. It appears that petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands.

The object behind Section 24 of the Act providing for maintenance pendente lite to a party in matrimonial proceedings is obviously to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceedings and also to have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds. When considering such a piece of legislation, it would not be right to adopt a narrow pedantic approach. On the other hand, if the Court desires to gather the legislative intention from the provisions of such an Act, it must adopt a liberal and progressive approach keeping in mind that it was the liberal and progressive approach of the legislature which led to the enactment being passed. See : Mr. Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas Vs. Mrs. Reena Krishna Vyas and another, , Rita Dutta and Another Vs. Subhendu Dutta, , Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde : AIR2007Delhi197 and Alok Kumar Jain v. Purnima Jain AIR 2007 (Delhi) 1654

In Shri Nishan Singh Vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, , our own High Court was pleased to observe:

While estimating the income of a spouse in a proceeding u/s 24 of the Act, some guess work cannot be ruled out completely. An interested party often tries to conceal his/her income in order to lower the income or defeat the claim of the opposite party.

For all the reasons, I see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower court. The petition is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed in liming.

CM No. 13463/2007

In view of the disposal of the petition, no further directions are required to be passed in this application and the application Therefore stands disposed of.