Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1196 (PNJ)

Munish Duggal v. Anika Gulati

2016-04-26

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Darshan Singh, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 10.12.2015, vide which the District Judge (Family Court), Gurgaon has awarded the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act') at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife over and above the rent and electricity charges. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the petitioner has lost the job on 25.05.2015. It was categorically pleaded in the reply filed to the application under Section 24 of the Act that he is already paying a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month as rent and about Rs. 10,000/- as electricity charges. He is also paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent for maintenance of the minor child. He further contended that the respondent-wife has not produced any documentary evidence to show the income of the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband has also no concern with the business carried on by his father. His father is the sole proprietor of the business. Thus, he contended that at present the petitioner is out of the job and has no source of income. The respondent is also an educated lady. She is M.B.A. and had been doing job up to the year 2013. She is able to earn and maintain herself. Thus, he contended that the maintenance pendente lite awarded by the learned Family Court at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month is highly exorbitant. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that the petitioner-husband is highly qualified. He was working as Consultant with Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and was getting salary more than Rs. 1,60,000/- per month. The petitioner along with his parents is also running Sai Trading Company, 340/17A, Gurgaon and also running a paying guest house in the upper storey of the house, whereas the respondent-wife has no course of income to maintain herself and the minor child. He contended that the plea raised by the petitioner that he has resigned the job is only a mischief to project his defence. He further contended that the learned Magistrate has awarded the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Cr.P.C.'). He contended that the plea raised by the petitioner that he has resigned the job is only a mischief to project his defence. He further contended that the learned Magistrate has awarded the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Cr.P.C.'). So, the maintenance awarded by the leaned District Judge cannot be stated to be exorbitant, rather the same is on lower side. 4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 5. This fact is not disputed that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The petitioner-husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. There is no material on record to show that respondent-wife has any independent source of income, sufficient to maintain herself and her minor son. Mere this fact that she is an educated lady and is able to earn, is no ground to decline her the maintenance pendente lite as actually she is not doing any job and having no independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her minor child. 6. In order to determine the quantum of maintenance, the Court is required to take into consideration the living standard of the husband and his family and his earning capacity, as the wife is also entitled to the same standard of living. As per the case of the respondent-wife, the petitioner was earning Rs. 1,60,000/- while working in Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. He has also a family business under the name and style 'Sai Trading Company' and is also having the income from paying guest house in the upper storey of the house. The petitioner has placed on file the certificate dated 19.10.2015 issued by the Associate-Human Capital, Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon to show that he is out of job, but this certificate shows that he was having the designation of the Principal Consultant in that company and had left the job on 21.08.2015. This fact has not been disputed at bar that the divorce petition was filed by the petitioner-husband before the resignation. There is no material on record to show that he was compelled from the acts of the respondent-wife to resign the job. This fact has not been disputed at bar that the divorce petition was filed by the petitioner-husband before the resignation. There is no material on record to show that he was compelled from the acts of the respondent-wife to resign the job. So, it appears that the resignation tendered by the petitioner-husband was only a move to stall the legitimate right of respondent-wife to claim maintenance pendente lite, which depicts the conduct of the petitioner-husband. On one hand the petitioner is claiming that he is out of job and having no source of income but on the other hand, it is pleaded that he is paying Rs. 18,000/- as a rent, Rs. 10,000/- towards electricity charges and Rs. 10,000/- for maintenance of the child to the respondent-wife. If he is unemployed and having no source of income, it is not explained then from what source he is paying the aforesaid amount. 7. This fact is not disputed that the family of the petitioner is running the Sai Trading Company. The petitioner has pleaded that his father is proprietor of the said firm and he has no concern with the said business. But this fact shows the financial status of the family. It has not been disputed at bar that after the passing of this order, the respondent-wife has been awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is even higher than the maintenance pendente lite awarded under Section 24 of the Act. The learned District Judge (Family Court) has awarded the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife to maintain herself and her child, which cannot be stated to be exorbitant. 8. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is without any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the maintenance pendente lite paid by the petitioner-husband under Section 24 of the Act shall be adjustable towards the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent-wife in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.