Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 942 (RAJ)

Kavita v. Surender

2016-07-05

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. 1. By this appeal a challenge is made to the order dated 23rd January, 2014 whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act of 1955) was allowed in part and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings and Rs. 150/- on each hearing as travelling expenses. 2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19.01.2001 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born who are with appellant. The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant before the Family Court, Kota on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which was later on transferred by this Court to Family Court No. 1, Jaipur on the request of appellant. During the pendency of divorce petition, the appellant filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 for claiming maintenance pendente lite and expenses from the respondent pleading that the respondent is running a Rice Mill in the name and style as Rajasthan Industries at Kota and is earning of Rs. 70,000-80,000/- per month. The appellant's daughters are school going and she is not in a position to meet out the expenses of education and other expenses. It is also pleaded that the appellant has no independent income sufficient for her support. Respondent opposed the application pleading that the appellant is an MBA and is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, the respondent has no source of income and is fully dependent on his parents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During pendency of appeal, the appellant produced some documents regarding educational expenses of her daughters along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC which was allowed. The appellant also filed an application seeking enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent which was followed by counter affidavit of the appellant along with copy of details of Gross Turn-over of Rajasthan Industries, Kota. Respondent filed copies of his income tax returns for the assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 showing his income as Nil. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent which was followed by counter affidavit of the appellant along with copy of details of Gross Turn-over of Rajasthan Industries, Kota. Respondent filed copies of his income tax returns for the assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 showing his income as Nil. There is no material on record which goes to show that appellant has any source of income. 4. It is the case of the respondent that he has no source of income and is dependent on his parents, whereas appellant's case is that respondent is earning 70,000-80,000/- per month as he is running a Rice Mill in the name and style as Rajasthan Industries at Kota. According to the respondent, his father is the owner of said Rice Mill and not the respondent. 5. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the document i.e. "Details of Return filed by Rajasthan Industries, Kota." in Commercial Taxes Department. From perusal of this document it appears that Gross Turn-over of M/s Rajasthan Industries, Kota in the year 2013-2014 was approximately 4.6 Crores. The respondent did not file copies of his income tax returns for the subsequent period to year 2009-2010. From perusal of the impugned order it reveals that respondent in his reply pleaded that he is living with his parents and looking after the affairs of his father's Rice Mill. From the documents produced by the appellant it appears that her daughters are studying in St. Anslem Pink City Senior Secondary School, Jaipur and St. Mary Convent Secondary School at Jaipur and she is spending a huge amount on the education of her daughters. 6. In view of above, looking to the social and financial status of the family of the parties and the present conditions where even survival on such meager amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month is very difficult, we are inclined to enhance the amount of pendente lite maintenance from Rs. 3,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of this order. 7. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and while allowing the appeal we direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act from the date of this order. The amount of maintenance will be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance payable to the appellant in other proceedings, if any. 7. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and while allowing the appeal we direct the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act from the date of this order. The amount of maintenance will be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance payable to the appellant in other proceedings, if any. Other terms of the impugned order shall remain unchanged.