Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 556 (PNJ)

Jasjeet Singh Dhillon v. Tania Pandher

2023-02-07

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

body2023
JUDGMENT Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The petitioner-husband has filed this civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and consequently dismissing the application filed by the respondent-wife for grant of ad-interim maintenance as an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month has wrongly been awarded to her; along with certain other prayers. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate assisting Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-wife. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the parties to the petition got married in the year 2014. At the initial stage; both of them happened to be in United States of America (USA) and they had earned even the U.S. Green Cards. Both of them were employed in USA. However, as the times started going bad, there happened the alleged divorce between the parties, though disputed by the respondent-wife. However, the fact remains that the respondent-wife returned to India in the year 2019 and the petitioner-husband returned to India in March, 2021. But before their return to India proceedings before the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the DV Act) were already initiated. The said proceedings are still going on. In the said proceedings the court has awarded an amount of ?1,30,000/- as interim maintenance. However, even that order of grant of interim maintenance under the DV Act is under challenge in appeal at the instance of petitioner-husband and the same is pending. 4. On a parallel line; the respondent-wife has initiated another proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the said proceedings the Court has granted and interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife. But the order is silent on the aspect of set-off vis-a-vis the maintenance granted under the DV Act. Challenging the said order the petitionerhusband has preferred the present petition. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the court below has taken the income of the petitioner on too much exaggerated level without any basis. But the order is silent on the aspect of set-off vis-a-vis the maintenance granted under the DV Act. Challenging the said order the petitionerhusband has preferred the present petition. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the court below has taken the income of the petitioner on too much exaggerated level without any basis. However, even while taking the conservative assessment, the income from agriculture, as taken by the court below, as Rs.1,20,000/- per month, there is no warrant for granting Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The counsel has further submitted that the court has wrongly clubbed the income of the petitioner which he was generating while he was in USA. The same has to be ignored for all purposes after the date the petitioner had returned to India. In India the petitioner does not have any source of permanent income except the agricultural income. 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the petitioner is having about 27 acres of land in his name; and from that only the income is about 27 lacs per annum. Beside this, the petitioner is having a shop in grain market in Sri Muktsar Sahib, which brings rental income of Rs.70,000/- per month. The counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had filed income-tax return of USA income even after submitting his resignation from his job there. This shows that he was having more and continuous income from the USA; as well. The fact that the petitioner is not showing the complete details of his income is reflected from the fact that the respondent could get details of only one bank account of the petitioner; and that bank account itself is showing deposits of Rs.20,00,000/- in one year. Hence, the maintenance has rightly been awarded by the Court below. 7. As reply to the argument of the counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that although he is having 50% share in the shop in the grain market which is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, however, that shop is not bringing any income to him because the same has never been given on rent. 8. Having heard the counsel for the parties this court finds substance in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitionerhusband. 8. Having heard the counsel for the parties this court finds substance in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitionerhusband. It is not even disputed by the petitioner that he is having about 25 acres of land. Therefore, the court has, at this stage and subject to any further evidence in the matter, rightly assessed the agricultural income of the petitioner as Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. 9. Besides this, since a property in the prime area of grain market has been disclosed by the counsel for the respondent; and it has not even been denied by the petitioner that the petitioner is having, at least, 50% share in the shop, therefore, that shop has to be presumed to have some rental value for the petitioner. As a tentative measure and limited for the purpose of present petition, this court assess the 50% of the income from that shop coming to the share of petitioner at the rate of about Rs.35,000/- per month. Accordingly; the tentative income of the petitioner, at this stage and for the limited purpose of the present petition, is taken as Rs.1,55,000/-. 10. So far as the income of the petitioner alleged to have been generated in USA is concerned, it is yet to be finally decided by the court below. However, for the purpose of present petition only, since, undisputedly; the petitioner has returned to India, therefore, this court is not including that aspect for the assessment of the income of the petitioner; at this stage. 11. Accordingly, taking the income of the petitioner as about Rs.1,55,000/- per month, the respondent-wife is held entitled to interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. 12. The petitioner is directed to deposit this amount of interim maintenance in the account of the respondent-wife, the last four digits of which are:XXXXXXXXX6490, and the full detail of which are already with the petitioner-husband. The amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in the said account of the respondent by 10th of every month. Since there are arrears of maintenance stated to be outstanding against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is granted time to deposit the entire amount of arrears till the month of February, 2023; as per the amount determined by this court within a period of three months. 13. Since there are arrears of maintenance stated to be outstanding against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is granted time to deposit the entire amount of arrears till the month of February, 2023; as per the amount determined by this court within a period of three months. 13. In case the petitioner-husband fails to deposit the arrears or commits even a single default in deposit of the monthly maintenance amount, then the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, and the respondent-wife shall be entitled to claim full amount of maintenance as per the order of the trial Court. 14. However, since the present order is being passed only as an interim measure and for the purpose of assessing the tentative maintenance for reasonable survival of the respondent-wife, therefore, nothing said in this order shall be deemed to be any expression on merits qua any right of either of the party to prove or disprove the income for the purpose of determination of the final maintenance by the trial court. 15. The issue of set-off is not being considered in this order because even interim maintenance awarded by the court under DV Act, is stated to be under challenge in appeal. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make any application or submission before the court hearing the appeal against the order passed by the DV Act in this regard; but strictly in accordance with law; and the appellate court shall consider the said submission, if any, strictly in accordance with law and after granting due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to address on that aspect. With the aforesaid directions the impugned order stands modified and the present petition stands disposed of.