Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2059 (RAJ)

Ayush Poddar v. Parul Patanwala

2019-07-30

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : DHADDHA, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant husband against the order of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur passed on 11.4.2019 whereby the learned Family Court allowed the Matrimonial Application No. 387/2017 filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) with directions to the appellant husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance to the respondent wife w.e.f. submission of application i.e. 24.4.2017 to final decision of the Original Case. The learned Family Court further directed to the appellant husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a lump sum for court proceedings and other miscellaneous/legal expenses to the respondent wife. In case, the respondent wife is getting any maintenance from other court or in any other case, that shall be adjusted. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that marriage between the parties solemnized on 22.11.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs in Hotel Rajputana Sheretan, Jaipur. Appellant and respondent have been residing separately since 8.12.2015. The appellant had filed an application u/s 12 of the Act before the Family Court to declare the marriage between them as null and void. The appellant husband also filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of the Act against respondent wife which is pending and is being tried together with application u/s 12 of the Act. The respondent wife filed an application u/s 24 of the Act which is allowed vide impugned order dated 11.4.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 11.4.2019 is illegal, arbitrary, against the material available on record and also against the principles governing grant of maintenance u/s 24 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court did not consider the contradictory stand of the respondent wife as she claimed in her application that she is jobless and has no means to earn anything since 8.3.2015. On the other hand, appellant had filed copies of her ITR which reflect her income approximately two lacs for the year year 2017-2018. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had lost his job from abroad and due to that the major reduction was reflected in his ITR. On the other hand, appellant had filed copies of her ITR which reflect her income approximately two lacs for the year year 2017-2018. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had lost his job from abroad and due to that the major reduction was reflected in his ITR. Learned counsel submitted that the finding of the learned Family Court with regard to directorship of appellant in 15 companies is erroneous on the face of it as the record of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, shows that he is no more Director in any of the companies mentioned by the respondent wife. Learned counsel submitted that if wife is earning and can maintain lifestyle for herself, then she does not deserve to get any maintenance u/s 24 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent wife is an established jewelry designer/interior designer and she runs a business under the brand name of “Parure”. She also sells on online stores like Amazon, Glowroad etc. She claims herself as acclaimed designer in the various newspapers. All these facts prove that the respondent wife is earning more than appellant. The learned Family Court had not considered these facts and awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent wife. So, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in Nisha Jain v. Amit Jain, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4866. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 6. The learned Family Court clearly stated that the appellant is Director in 15 renowned companies. He has also shares in these companies along with his family members. As per annual report of Poddar Spinning Mills, he is full time Director and getting a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as annual salary. The learned Family Court in its order clearly mentioned that the income of the appellant is much more than the respondent. Respondent had stated in her application that she had done business of interior designer before her marriage. As per Income Tax Return, income of respondent for the year 2017-2018 is Rs. 1,92,500/-. Appellant's income as per his Income Tax Return in 2017-2018 is Rs. 2,38,540/-. Income Tax Return also reflects that the appellant's exempted income i.e. agricultural income as Rs. 86,770/-. As per Income Tax Return, income of respondent for the year 2017-2018 is Rs. 1,92,500/-. Appellant's income as per his Income Tax Return in 2017-2018 is Rs. 2,38,540/-. Income Tax Return also reflects that the appellant's exempted income i.e. agricultural income as Rs. 86,770/-. The respondent wife has much less income than appellant. The respondent wife has right to live same standard as appellant is living. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, decided on 28.10.2014 observed that merely because the wife is earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded to the respondent wife appears to be minimal and in our view, the order of the learned Family Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Since the main matter has been dismissed today, the stay application also stands dismissed.