Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 888 (PNJ)

Yash Pal Handa v. Saroj Handa

2004-08-12

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2004
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. By this Order I will dispose of an application filed by the wife Smt. Saroj Handa, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. 2. The parties were married on 29.8.1973 at Bassi Pathana District Patiala, according to Hindu Rites. Two daughters were born from this wedlock - first on 24.11.1974 and the second on 16.1.1976. The wife was employed as a teachress in the Govt. Girls High School at Bassi Pathana. However, she retired from the said service and is now a retired woman, living alone. The marriage of first daughter was solemnized on 31.5.1997 and she spent an amount of Rupees Three lacs and the marriage of the second daughter was solemnized on 12.4.2003 and she claimed that she had taken loan for that purpose. According to her, the husband did not contribute at all in the second marriage while he is employed as Deputy Manager in the Food Corporation of India posted at Chandigarh and is getting a salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- per month, maintaining a car, living a lavish life, owns one double storey house with area of 300 square yards in Tej Bagh Colony at Patiala, he also owns one house situated at Dugri Road, Ludhiana in an area of 200 square yards which he has rented out and that his monthly income from all sources is about Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is alleged that unfortunately the marriage of one of the daughters has been broken and she is living with her mother. On these premises she claims maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 3. Reply to the application was filed and it is vehemently contended that this application under Section 24 of the Act was an abuse of the process of law and she had never filed an application earlier for maintenance. He further contended that the husband had contributed in the marriage of the elder daughter. According to the husband she retired as Headmistress from the Govt. School and is getting pension not less than Rs. 8,000/- per month besides other benefits. He further contended that the husband had contributed in the marriage of the elder daughter. According to the husband she retired as Headmistress from the Govt. School and is getting pension not less than Rs. 8,000/- per month besides other benefits. The factum with regard to the matrimonial petition under Section 13-B of the Act pending between the daughter of the parties and her husband is not disputed and it is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is denied that the husband has an income of Rs. 30,000/- per month. According to the husband, the house was built up by his father. The appellant states that he is living with his aged mother, his two widowed sisters and their children and the appellant is suffering from chronic heart disease and he has to spend an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month on his medical treatment. On these facts it is prayed that the application for maintenance be dismissed. 4. Both the objections raised on behalf of the husband are without any basis. There is no bar upon an applicant-spouse to claim maintenance pendentelite at any stage of the proceedings merely because the wife has not filed any application for maintenance earlier cannot be treated as a bar for raising such a claim now. In fact it goes to the credit of the wife and shows her bona fide rather than abuse to the process of law. The fact that she is an old lady having two children with her still she did not claim any maintenance from the husband who enjoyed the entire salary, income of the property and other perks himself. It hardly lies in the mouth of the husband even to raise such an objection. Now the wife has retired and she is living with a meagre pension which she is getting and is supporting her unfortunate daughter. Furthermore this argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband is also liable to be rejected that since the wife is getting pension she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. This issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a number of judgments of this Court. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sawinderjit Singh v. Kuldeep Kaur (2000-2) 131 P.L.R. 736. 5. This issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a number of judgments of this Court. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sawinderjit Singh v. Kuldeep Kaur (2000-2) 131 P.L.R. 736. 5. The husband has not placed on record his salary certificate which would be the best evidence to prove on the record the present salary which he is receiving and the deductions which are being made from the said salary. He has made a vague averment, without reference to the scale in which he is receiving salary, saying that his gross salary is Rs. 18,090/- and after deductions he is receiving Rs. 14,000/- approximately. In this way the husband has withhold the most important document which was in his power and possession. The Court must essentially draw an adverse inference against the husband and observe that the applicant is drawing the salary of Rs. 21,000/-, as alleged in the application. Furthermore it is not disputed that he has rental income also. The husband as alleged is supporting his old parents and probably his widowed sisters. This may be a consideration in fixation of quantum of maintenance but is no ground for declining the maintenance to his wife and even to the daughter who is now unemployed and is living with her mother. The obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife and children is absolute. The facts stated in the reply are relevant only for determining the quantum of maintenance and for no other purpose as such. It is surprising that the husband is trying to take advantage of the conduct of the wife that she did not claim maintenance from him in the past when she was employed. The husband ought to be thankful to his wife that she did not claim any maintenance. 6. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the application filed by the wife needs to be allowed. She is thus entitled to receive maintenance for maintaining herself as well as her daughter who is living with her. The wife is entitled to enjoy such status which she would have enjoyed if she continued living with her husband as they were not living separately out of any avoidable circumstances. The Court must also keep in mind the fact that the wife is getting pension of Rs. The wife is entitled to enjoy such status which she would have enjoyed if she continued living with her husband as they were not living separately out of any avoidable circumstances. The Court must also keep in mind the fact that the wife is getting pension of Rs. 8,000/- per month and the claim for maintenance should also be reasonable so as not to create inequities between the parties. The obligation of the husband by enforce are constrained within reasonable limits of law. 7. While allowing this application for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, under Section 24 of the Act, I direct the husband to pay at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-per month to the wife, which money she in turn shall spent in looking after her daughter who is living with her. The wife is entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The maintenance shall be paid from the date of the application. 8. The application is allowed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.