SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bharti Sharma vs Deepak Sharma on 16 August, 2018

CR No.6780 of 2017


CR No.6780 of 2017
Date of Decision : 16.08.2018

Bharti Sharma


Deepak Sharma



Present: Mr. M.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the respondent.


1. Prayer is for modification of order dated 04.08.2017

(Annexure P-3), passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul, under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’), granting `3,000/- as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner and

her two minor children along with `5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Before the learned District Judge, stand of the petitioner was

that she and her two minor children namely Jatin aged 8 years and Kashish

aged 5 years were beaten up by the respondent and turned out from the

matrimonial home where after they were staying in a rented

accommodation at Mohindergarh. It was claimed that the petitioner was

having a monthly expenditure of `5400/- on the education and other

expenses of the children besides was paying `4500/- as house rent.

1 of 4
22-08-2018 00:40:49 :::
CR No.6780 of 2017

Respondent was claimed to be a registered contractor and owning a Maruti

Zen car, earning `60,000/- per month. Claim was for order granting

maintenance of `40,000/- per month to the petitioner and her two minor

children besides litigation expenses of `25,000/-.

3. In reply, the respondent-husband’s stand was that the

petitioner is M.Com and teaching in a private school in Mohindergarh on

monthly salary of `25,000/- besides she was also taking tuitions. However,

respondent admitted owning a car and earning `6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per

month from said car. It was also pleaded that father of the respondent

having died, he had to maintain his widowed mother also.

4. Admittedly neither of the parties led any evidence before the

learned District Judge, Narnaul, on the application under Section 24 of the

Act. Further there is no dispute that the parties to the ligation have two

children aged 8 years and 5 years respectively and that the parties are

staying separately. There is also no denial that the respondent is owning a

car and is earning `6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. The learned District

Judge, Narnaul, by taking into account that even a casual labourer is not

expected to earn less than `10,000/- per month, awarded a sum of `3,000/-

per month to the petitioner and her two minor children besides `5,000/- as

litigation expenses.

5. Learned counsel reiterated respective stand of parties before the

learned District Judge. While the learned counsel claimed enhancement,

learned counsel for the respondent claimed that the maintenance awarded

was proper and did not warrant any enhancement.

2 of 4
22-08-2018 00:40:49 :::
CR No.6780 of 2017

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the

respondent-husband owns a 10 years old Maruti Zen car and claims to be

earning `6,000/- to `7,000/- per month from said vehicle. However, the

respondent has not mentioned as to how he is earning `6,000/- to `7,000/-

from the vehicle in question nor is it the stand of the respondent that he

holds a licence to ply the Maruti Zen car as a taxi. In the circumstances, it

has to be presumed that the respondent is maintaining the car for his

personal use.

7. The learned District Judge, Narnaul treated the income of the

respondent as not less than that of a casual labourer i.e. approximately

`10,000/- per month and awarded `3,000/- as maintenance pendente lite to

the petitioner and her two minor children along with `5,000/- as litigation

expenses. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how a person who

claims to have no means of subsistence is maintaining a car even though it

might be 10 years old. A person who does not earn reasonably well cannot

maintain a car. A person cannot maintain a car until and unless he has the

means to ply the vehicle. Running of vehicle nowadays with prices of

petrol touching close to `74/- per litre, goes to show that the respondent is

a man of adequate means and is earning well. In any case, it cannot be

presumed that a person who is maintaining a car and would obviously be

spending some money for running it, would not be earning less than

approximately `15,000/- per month. Since, the petitioner is residing along

with her two minor children having been turned out from the matrimonial

home by the respondent, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things if the

3 of 4
22-08-2018 00:40:49 :::
CR No.6780 of 2017

maintenance awarded to the petitioner and her two minor children is

enhanced from `3,000 to `6,000/- per month.

8. In the light of the position as noted above, the impugned order

is modified and the interim maintenance payable to the petitioner and her

two minor children is enhanced from `3,000/- to `6,000/- per month w.e.f.

the date of application.

9. Revision petition is allowed and impugned order is modified

to the extent as noted above.


Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
22-08-2018 00:40:49 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation