Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

Radhika Negi v. T. G. Negi

2012-03-29

V.K.SHARMA

body2012
JUDGEMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The parties to the present petition are an estranged couple, the petitioner, being the wife and the respondent husband, who is an IAS Officer. 2. The challenge herein is against the order dated 25.09.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) filed by the wife against the husband for grant of maintenance pendente lite in a petition under Section 11 of the Act for annulment of marriage, whereby maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 22,000/- per month has been allowed to the wife apart from a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. The mainstay of the challenge is that according to the petitioner, in the face of admitted facts that the husband is receiving monthly salary of Rs. 1,07,000/-, the amount of maintenance fixed by the learned trial court is on extremely lower side. Per contra, the husband contends that his monthly carry home salary being only Rs. 35,000/-, the order granting maintenance of Rs. 22,000/-, though on the higher side, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. In support of the claim for enhancement of maintenance, the wife has relied upon the following authorities: 1.Laxmi Sharma vs. Dr. Akash Deep, 2012 (1) Shim. LC 74, 2. S.S. Bindra vs. Tarvinder Kaur, AIR 2004 Delhi 442, 3. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt) vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7, 4. Mrs. Sushma Bawa vs. Ravinder Nath Bawa, 1993 (2) HLR 221, 5. Promila Nangia vs. Baldev Raj Nangia, 1989 (2) Hindu Law Reporter, 37 and 6. Mrs. Rajni Abrol vs. Adarsh Abrol, 1989 (2) Hindu Law Reporter, 115. 5. From the side of the husband, the following authorities have been relied upon: 1. Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar, AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 2748, 2.Ram Partap Sehgal vs. Smt. Yashbir, 1979 Hindu Law Reporter, 348 and 3. Smt. Shushila Devi vs. Dhani Ram and another, AIR 1965 Himachal Pradesh 12. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I have also taken due note of the law laid down in the authorities cited on behalf of the parties at the bar. 7. Smt. Shushila Devi vs. Dhani Ram and another, AIR 1965 Himachal Pradesh 12. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I have also taken due note of the law laid down in the authorities cited on behalf of the parties at the bar. 7. It is seen from the record that in an earlier petition filed by the husband against the wife, under Section 13 of the Act, for grant of a decree of divorce, the wife and the two dependant children of the parties, residing with her, were granted consolidated monthly pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 24 of the Act besides Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses, vide order dated 16.06.2007, copy of which has been brought on record of the present petition by the wife, a perusal whereof would go to show that on or about the year 2007, whereas son of the parties was studying in an engineering college, the daughter was a student of senior secondary classes. Though a period of about five years has elapsed since then, yet in the absence of any materials on record about the status of the children as of now, it can be safely inferred that either they have completed or are at the verge of completion of their studies. 8. Though, according to the husband, the wife is also having personal income from an ITI School and SCVT Counseling Centre, being run by her, yet there is no documentary proof on record to this effect. Similarly, according to the wife, the husband is also having an orchard from which he is having income, but again the income has not been either quantified or any material brought on record to ascertain such income. 9. From the materials available on record, it can be safely inferred that when on 30.03.2010 the husband had filed reply to the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite filed by the wife, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, he himself had admitted that his total monthly salary was Rs. 1,07,000/-, which must have gone up by now as it is a matter of common knowledge that government servants besides earning annual increments are also getting additional installments of dearness allowance every six months. Though, the husband has stated that his carry home salary is only Rs. 1,07,000/-, which must have gone up by now as it is a matter of common knowledge that government servants besides earning annual increments are also getting additional installments of dearness allowance every six months. Though, the husband has stated that his carry home salary is only Rs. 35,000/-, yet he has not given any break up of the deductions from salary, except that he was paying a monthly installment of Rs. 6850/- towards house loan raised by him. Except deductions on account of licence fee of official/pooled residential accommodation and a fixed deduction on account of GIS, which are not sizable, there is no other compulsory deduction from salary of a government servant except on account of deduction at source of income tax. It may be that a particular government servant may be contributing a large sum towards General Provident Fund, but such deduction is in the nature of long term saving. 10. With admitted salary of Rs. 1,07,000/- and after taking into consideration the exemptions available, it can be safely concluded that at least 20% of the salary would be deducted as income tax at source, leaving rest of the salary at Rs. 85,600/-. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the respective status of the parties and their children and on an over all view of the matter, I am satisfied that the monthly maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses granted by the learned trial court are slightly on the lower side and are required to be enhanced appropriately. While doing so, the submission on behalf of the husband that he is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in June, 2012, which assertion is denied on behalf of the wife for want of knowledge, can also not be lost sight off. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.09.2010 is modified to the extent that the husband shall pay consolidated maintenance pendente lite to the wife and the children of the parties, who are residing with her, @ Rs. 33,000/- per month from the date of application, that is, 06.01.2010, instead of Rs. 22,000/- per month, as awarded by the learned trial court and litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- granted by the said Court. 33,000/- per month from the date of application, that is, 06.01.2010, instead of Rs. 22,000/- per month, as awarded by the learned trial court and litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- granted by the said Court. The arrears of maintenance pendente lite and difference on account of litigation expenses shall be paid by the husband to the wife against receipt or the same shall be deposited in the learned trial court within three months from today. 13. The above arrangement shall continue till there is change in circumstances of the parties such as retirement of the husband from government service and the children becoming self dependant, in which event the husband shall be free to seek modification of this order by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 14. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 3rd May, 2012. The requisitioned record be sent back so as to reach well before the date fixed. 15. The petition, so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.