Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 453 (KAR)

Sandeep Sankhla v. Vandana Saini

2018-04-02

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2018
ORDER : Having been directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, inclusive of litigation expenses, from the date of the application till the disposal of the petition, the petitioner-husband has challenged the order dated 01.02.2018, passed by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, before this Court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were married according to the Hindu rites and customs. However, during their matrimonial life, certain differences arose between the parties; they parted their ways. According to the petitioner, the respondent-wife deserted the husband in January 2015, and went back to her parental place in Rajastan. Therefore he was constrained to file a divorce petition against the respondent-wife on the ground of desertion. During the course of the divorce proceeding, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking an interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections. However, by the impugned order dated 01.02.2018, the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. K. S. Bheemaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that although the respondent had pleaded that the petitioner was a businessman, she did not produce any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the learned Family Court is unjustified in granting an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Secondly, the interim maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- is too excessive an amount, which cannot be borne by the petitioner. Thirdly, since the respondent-wife is living in a village, an interim maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- is too large a sum to be paid to her for her maintenance. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the said amount needs to be reduced by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner did not deny the fact that he has regular income from his business setup. Moreover he did not reveal before the learned Family Court, the income earned by him on a monthly basis. 4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned order. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner did not deny the fact that he has regular income from his business setup. Moreover he did not reveal before the learned Family Court, the income earned by him on a monthly basis. Since there was no specific denial by the petitioner of the assertion made by the respondent-wife, the learned Family Court was justified in accepting the submissions made by the respondent. Therefore, the first contention, being raised by the learned counsel, is clearly untenable. 6. Poverty is no defence to an interim maintenance application as the husband is both legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that he cannot afford a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence the second contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly untenable. 7. Merely because the respondent wife happens to be living in a village, does not mean that she is not entitled to a reasonable amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Considering the fact that even a fourth class employee is getting more than Rs.25,000/- per month as salary, an amount of Rs.25,000/- as an interim maintenance is rather reasonable, just and fair. After all, the respondent wife has to maintain herself, in her body, soul and mind, and has to lead a lifestyle that she became accustomed to having married a businessman. Moreover her dignity cannot be denied to her merely on the ground that she has left the matrimonial home. 8. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.