Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 259 (RAJ)

Shivpreet Singh v. Amanpreet Kaur

2020-01-28

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 22.2.19 passed by the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.236/18, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent for herself and Rs.10,000/- per month for her minor daughter-Bani. That apart, the appellant is directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum towards the litigation expenses. The amount if any, already been paid by the appellant to the respondent towards the maintenance in other proceedings is directed to be adjusted against the amount payable in terms of the order impugned. 2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month i.e. Rs.40,000/- each for respondent herself and her minor daughter. The respondent further claimed Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses. 3. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as doctor in Government service and drawing monthly salary of Rs.97,480/-. That apart, he is having 40 bighas command land and also earning by giving the land of his brother measuring 40 bighas for cultivation. The income of the appellant from agriculture as mentioned in the application preferred by the respondent is Rs.20,00,000/- per annum. It was further averred that the appellant is earning Rs.50,000/- per month from sale and purchase of house, plots etc. 4. The application was contested by the appellant by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that respondent has deserted the appellant without reasonable cause and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. According to the appellant, the respondent is employed as Lecturer in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month. The appellant claimed that the respondent is being paid Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and therefore, she is not entitled for any further maintenance. 5. According to the appellant, the respondent is employed as Lecturer in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month. The appellant claimed that the respondent is being paid Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and therefore, she is not entitled for any further maintenance. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the Family Court arrived at the finding that the appellant employed as doctor, is earning Rs.97,480/- per month as salary and after deduction, drawing Rs.81,351/- per month. No evidence was produced by the appellant showing that the respondent is employed as a Lecturer in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Family Court determined the amount of maintenance and the litigation expenses payable to the respondent as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after deduction, the appellant is drawing net pay Rs.69,027/- per month only. It is submitted that there was no evidence produced on record showing that the appellant is earning Rs.20,00,000/- from agriculture. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent holding the qualification of MBA is employed in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar and earning Rs.70,000/- per month and thus, she having reasonable source of income is not entitled for any maintenance. Drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of the respondent recorded by the Family Court in Criminal Case No.889/13, learned counsel submitted that the fact that the respondent is employed in Jain College, Sri Ganganagar stands admitted by her and thus, the finding arrived at by the Family Court that the respondent has no source of income is ex facie erroneous. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT 693 . 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that after deduction of the income tax, the respondent is earning about Rs.85,000/- per month and after compulsory deduction, the income from salary of the appellant assessed by the Family Court at Rs.81,351/- cannot be said to be erroneous. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT 693 . 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that after deduction of the income tax, the respondent is earning about Rs.85,000/- per month and after compulsory deduction, the income from salary of the appellant assessed by the Family Court at Rs.81,351/- cannot be said to be erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the appellant has income from agriculture as well, is not in dispute whereas, while assessing the income of the appellant and determining the maintenance payable, the income of the appellant from agriculture is not even taken into consideration by the Family Court. Learned counsel urged that the respondent is not employed as Lecturer in the college on regular basis rather, she is called by the college as and when required to deliver the lecture. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent in her statement referred to by the appellant has only stated that she was working in the college as part time Lecturer. Learned counsel would submit that as a matter of fact, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court for the minor daughter of the appellant and respondent is too meagre. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent is employed as doctor in State service and earning Rs. 1,01,338/- per month. As per the pay slip produced by the appellant before this Court, he is drawing net pay Rs.67,533/-. But bare perusal of pay slip reveals that some of the deductions made are not compulsory deductions. It is pertinent to note that the factum of the appellant having agriculture land in the canal area is not disputed. 1,01,338/- per month. As per the pay slip produced by the appellant before this Court, he is drawing net pay Rs.67,533/-. But bare perusal of pay slip reveals that some of the deductions made are not compulsory deductions. It is pertinent to note that the factum of the appellant having agriculture land in the canal area is not disputed. Though, the appellant has claimed that he is having only 20 bighas of command land. But then, apparently, while assessing the income of the appellant, the Family Court has not taken into consideration the income earned by the appellant from agriculture. Obviously, even if it is assumed that the appellant has only 20 bighas of command land, he must be earning a reasonable income therefrom and thus, the total income of the appellant as assessed by the Family Court appears to be in lower side. 11. There is no evidence placed on record showing that the respondent while working as part time Lecturer is earning adequately to maintain herself. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance payable to the respondent by the appellant as determined by the Family Court cannot be said to be excessive. The litigation expenses awarded as Rs.10,000/- also appears to be reasonable. 12. In view of the discussion above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of any merit and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.