Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1093 (JHR)

Roudra Rohit Mallick v. Rohini Das Mallick

2018-05-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of order dated 28.05.2016 passed on an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 232 of 2015 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite. 2. Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 15.05.2014 at Ranchi. After the marriage the couple went to Bengaluru where the petitioner was working as Senior Software Engineer at WIPRO Ltd., Bengaluru. The petitioner has asserted that after his return from Jakarta during which period the respondent was pursuing her studies at Amity University, Noida, the couple started living separately from 25.04.2015 and on 15.05.2015 he left for the United States of America where he was sent by the employer-WIPRO Ltd. The respondent, however, has pleaded that without informing her, her husband and in-laws left her at Bengaluru leaving her in lurch. On 27.05.2015 the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs. 30,000/- as monthly maintenance and thereafter, Matrimonial Title Suit No. 232 of 2015 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. In this matrimonial suit the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for payment of Rs. 30,000/- as interim-maintenance during pendency of the suit. Responding to this application the petitioner filed a petition on 16.03.2016 for direction upon the respondent to disclose her basic salary and other income details, profit from immovable properties, insurance, shares, mutual funds etc. The respondent-wife filed rejoinder dated 25.05.2016 disclosing details of her salary income and her requirements for maintaining herself with dignity and status. The respondent-wife has asserted that she needs something around Rs. 56,000-60,000/- per month as interim-maintenance. The trial judge, after taking note of employment of the petitioner and affidavits filed by the parties, has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim-maintenance from 31.08.2015 i.e. date of filing of the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. 56,000-60,000/- per month as interim-maintenance. The trial judge, after taking note of employment of the petitioner and affidavits filed by the parties, has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim-maintenance from 31.08.2015 i.e. date of filing of the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once the respondent-wife has admitted that she has independent source of income, the question of interim-maintenance has to be examined in the context of her independent source of income and whether her income is sufficient in the ordinary course to maintain herself and not at her desire. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 proceeds on the basis of respondent''s affidavit dated 25.05.2016 in which she has sought interim-maintenance for Rs. 56,000-60,000/- per month. 4. As against the above, Mr. Rahul Kr. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent in response to the petition filed by her husband on 16.03.2016 has given details of her own income and her requirement for maintaining herself with dignity and it is not that on the basis of her affidavit dated 25.05.2016 alone the trial judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim-maintenance to the respondent. 5. In her application dated 31.08.2015 and supplementary affidavit to the said application, the respondent has pleaded details of her marriage, institution of a criminal case against her husband and her in-laws and income of the parties. Details of employment of the petitioner who for a brief period was deputed at Massachussets, United States of America and monthly income of the respondent have been narrated by her in these affidavits. However, there is no specific denial by the petitioner in the petition filed by him on 16.03.2016 to the allegations made by the respondent in these affidavits. In paragraph no. 4 of his affidavit he has simply denied that the respondent is not entitled for interim-maintenance. Main plea taken by the petitioner for resisting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is that the respondent is working with the office of Groffers and on her own saying she was employed on package salary of Rs. 3 lacs per annum on 20.07.2015. Main plea taken by the petitioner for resisting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is that the respondent is working with the office of Groffers and on her own saying she was employed on package salary of Rs. 3 lacs per annum on 20.07.2015. The respondent has admitted that after end of March, 2016 her salary was enhanced to Rs. 3.5 lacs per annum, however, the enhanced salary was not paid to her at the time when she filed affidavit dated 25.05.2016. 6. Now, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is still working with WIPRO Ltd. and the respondent now is not employed anywhere. In his supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2017 the petitioner has pleaded that his gross salary income is Rs 63,000/- per month. The fact, that the respondent has pleaded that she needs Rs. 56,000-60,000/- per month to maintain herself with dignity and the trial judge has granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim-maintenance, would not lead to an inference that the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 is primarily founded on affidavit dated 25.05.2016 filed by the respondent. It is not mathematical exactitude with which interim-maintenance payable to the wife can be assessed by the Court. The test is whether the interim-maintenance awarded to the wife is commensurate with her needs and status of the parties. In " Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain , (2017) 15 SCC 801 ", the Supreme Court has observed that : 16. ".....The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any indpendent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court." 7. In view of the facts pleaded by the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. The petitioner shall pay arrears of interim-maintenance to the respondent within a period of three months.