Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 38 (UTT)

Vivek Jain v. Madalsa Thapa Jain

2018-01-12

ALOK SINGH, RAJIV SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered appeals, hence these are being taken together and are adjudicated by this common judgment. In order to maintain clarity, the facts of A.O. No. 625 of 2017 are taken into consideration. 2. These appeals are instituted against the order dated 02.11.2017 rendered by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in application filed in Original Suit No. 158 of 2016 by the respondent/wife. In A.O. No.625 of 2017, appellant has sought setting aside of order dated 2.11.2017 passed by the Court below. In A.O. No.636 of 2017, appellant has prayed for the enhancement of maintenance. 3. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.02.2011. One daughter was born out of the wedlock. The appellant/husband has filed a petition seeking divorce bearing O.S. No.158 of 2016. The respondent has filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the averments that the appellant was employed as H.R. in Air Liquide Global E & C Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. His income was Rs.40.00 Lakhs per annum. His monthly income was about Rs.3,25,000/-. He is a very rich man. He has lot of landed property in and around Delhi. The application was contested by the appellant. 4. According to the appellant, his monthly salary was Rs.2,19,000/-, out of which he was paying Rs.1,80,000/- as EMI. He was left with only Rs.38,800/-. He has also to look after his ailing aged mother. 5. Learned Family Court has granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing the application and Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present appeals. 6. It has come on record that respondent-wife is working as a Teacher in Convent and Jesus Marry School at Dehradun. She is drawing salary Rs.18,708/- per month. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that she is not holding permanent job. No document has been placed on record to prove what is the approximate per annum salary of the appellant. According to appellant, his salary is Rs.2,19,000/- per month, though according to the respondent, his monthly salary is Rs.3,25,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that she is not holding permanent job. No document has been placed on record to prove what is the approximate per annum salary of the appellant. According to appellant, his salary is Rs.2,19,000/- per month, though according to the respondent, his monthly salary is Rs.3,25,000/-. The appellant has admitted that his salary is Rs.2,19,000/- per month, out of which he is paying EMI to the extent of Rs.1,80,000/- per month. The hefty amount of EMI is spent on his own volition. 7. The parties have solemnized the marriage on 09.02.2011. It is the responsibility of the appellant to maintain the respondent as well as young daughter. Learned Family Court has assessed the salary of the appellant to be Rs.38.00 Lakhs per annum without their being any tangible evidence to support the findings. The respondent is also gainfully employed. Learned Family Court has granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The Court is of the considered view that it is on the higher side. The appellant has to spend money for maintaining his ailing mother. It is not one of the cases where the wife is not employed. It is also true that while granting the interim maintenance, the status of both the parties is required to be gone into. The appellant is employed in the private sector. The respondent is also employed as a teacher. She has to maintain herself and pay the fees of her daughter. 8. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month as interim maintenance was slightly on the higher side. In view of all the facts & circumstances of the case, the respondent is entitled to get a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as interim maintenance taking into consideration her salary i.e. 18,000/- per month. However, awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses is upheld. 9. Accordingly, the A.O. No.625 of 2017 is partly allowed. Order dated 2.11.2017 passed by the Court below is modified and the interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, granted to Mrs. Madalsa Thapa Jain, shall be substituted by Rs.35,000/- per month from the date of filing of application in O.S. No.158 of 2016. 10. Appellant in A.O. No.636 of 2017 has not made out any ground for enhancement of interim maintenance. Accordingly, the appeal no.636 of 2017 is dismissed.