Sri Ajit Mohan Sathyanandan vs Smt. Anooja Balan

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 15.3.2013 impugned at Annexure-L to the petition. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute, inasmuch as the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The petition in M.C. No. 43/2012 is filed by the petitioner herein before the Family Court seeking dissolution of their marriage. In the pending petition, the respondent has filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court, by the order dated 15.3.2013 has ordered payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.

The case of the petitioner as put forth by the learned counsel is that the quantum of maintenance as awarded by the Family Court is not justified. In fact, the contention is that no maintenance whatsoever should have been granted inasmuch as the respondent herself is employed, even otherwise, the income of the petitioner as assumed by the Court below at Rs. 1,60,000/- per month is also not justified is the contention. In this petition, the petitioner has produced certain documents to contend that the respondent is employed and has income and also to contend that the petitioner does not have the quantum of income as considered by the Family Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent would however seriously dispute the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that no reference was made to any of the said documents in the statement of objections filed to the application and therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court is the contention.

It is also the case of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is not employed and she has no income and in fact, the petitioner himself has contended before the Court below that the respondent is not educated and it is in that view she could not be taken abroad.

Though the rival contentions in this regard has been addressed by the learned counsel and certain documents have been produced by the petitioner before this Court, this Court for the first time would not be in a position to analyse and assess the said documents in the absence of any evidence for proving the said documents, which have been produced herein and is disputed by the respondent. Though the position could have been that the petitioner should have relied on the said documents before the Court below, what becomes relevant to be noticed in the instant case is that the order sheet maintained by the Family Court which is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal would indicate that though the application had been listed for consideration and ultimately the order dated 15.3.2013 is passed, the order cannot be considered as the one having been passed after providing sufficient opportunity to the parties, more particularly, when the present contentions have been urged. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to reconsider the application for maintenance and dispose of the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the Family Court. During the pendency of the application w.e.f. 1.10.2013, the petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-, which has been ordered by the Family Court at the first instance to the respondent as interim measure without prejudice to the contentions in the application. The said amount shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent by demand draft, which shall be dispatched on or before 5th of every month. The said amount as indicated above is only an interim arrangement and the parties would thereafter be regulated by the order that would ultimately be passed by the Family Court on the application, of course, leaving open the legal remedies available 10 them in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.