Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2267 (RAJ)

Ajay Mittal v. Sonu Goyal

2019-08-22

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant-husband aggrieved by order of the Family Court No. 3, Jaipur, dated 20.05.2019, by which the Family Court has allowed the application of the respondent-wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granted her a sum of Rs. 7000/- as monthly maintenance pendente lite. 2. The respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. Mr. Raunak Dixit, learned counsel for appellant-husband, submitted that the Family Court has mechanically granted the amount of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7000/-. The order passed by the Family Court is against the settled principle of law. The Family Court failed to appreciate the respondent-wife herself is graduate and also having degree of B.Ed. And she is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by teaching work. The appellant-husband is earning only a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month, which is very low as compared to the income of the respondent-wife, by working with a hotel. The respondent-wife therefore does not deserve to be granted any maintenance. The Family Court has construed the word 'support' in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a very narrow manner. When the appellant-husband himself does not have sufficient means of income, how possibly he can maintain the respondent-wife. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal - 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 588, wherein it has been held that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged and that the spouses who are quarreling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Nisha Jain Vs. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Nisha Jain Vs. Amit Jain dated 24.08.2016 in Matrimonial Application (F.C.) 106/2015, wherein it has been held that provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been enacted to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has not independent source of income for his or her support and to incur necessary expenses to contest the litigation, can claim maintenance pendente lite so that proceedings may be continued without any hardship on his/her part. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband and perused the impugned order, we find that the respondent-wife has alleged that the appellant-husband is having the income approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month from his Golden Crush Restaurant. Apart from that, he also runs a business of catering. He maintains a Honda City car. The respondent-wife demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards monthly maintenance. The appellant-husband before the Family Court set up a case that he does not have anything to do with the Golden Crush Restaurant. He hardly earns a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month and that the respondent-wife is a qualified teacher having passed out B.Ed. Course and is earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The appellant-husband also maintained that he has already sold out the Honda City car. 5. The Family Court from the rival submissions of the parties found that though the appellant-husband has failed to prove the income of the respondent-wife but the fact that the appellant-husband was maintaining a car, denotes that he has a particular standard in the society and even if the car has been sold, his standard would be such and he is under obligation to maintain his wife atleast by payment of a meager sum of Rs. 7000/- per month. 6. The Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs. Anil Kachwaha - (2014) 16 SCC 715 has held that merely because wife was earning something, would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance particularly when her earnings were not placed on record. In this view of the matter, it is clear that even if wife earns certain amount, that does not absolve the husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. In this view of the matter, it is clear that even if wife earns certain amount, that does not absolve the husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.