SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajeev Kapoor vs Rashmi Kapoor on 6 August, 2018

224 CMM-200-2015 in FAO-M-343-2015


Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. K.S. Rana, Advocate, for the respondent.


Both the parties are present in the Court.

We have heard both of them.

It appears that on account of lack of compatibility, it is not

feasible for both the parties to stay together. However, the respondent-wife

submits that in case the welfare of the child, born out of the wedlock, is

taken care of, she is ready to get the appeal converted into a petition under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In response of said submission, the appellant-husband has

shown reluctance to pay any amount submitting that he can pay only a sum

of Rs.3 lakh and that too, to his son.

The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

has accordingly been taken up for hearing.

The applicant/respondent-wife has prayed for grant of

maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month claiming that

a child Paranshu Kapoor was born out of the wedlock on 01.09.2000. He

was student of St. Joseph Senior Secondary School, Sector 44-D,

Chandigarh. Monthly expenses of his study were Rs.6300/- per month

which included sum of Rs.5000/- as tuition fee and other stationery

expenditure. It is averred in the application that the non-

applicant/appellant-husband is commerce graduate and working in a

1 of 4
13-08-2018 01:41:53 :::
CMM-200-2015 in FAO-M-343-2015 -2-

company, Kara Wipe in Sales department as Sales Officer and also earns by

working part time. His income is more than Rs.35,000/- per month from all

the sources but he is not paying any money. The non-applicant/appellant-

husband has got no other liability. She claims maintenance pendente lite at

the rate of Rs.7000/- per month for her and Rs.10,000/- per month for her

minor son.

In the reply filed, it is mentioned that the applicant/respondent-

wife herself is employed as Liberian in Govt. Medical College and Hospital

Sector 32, Chandigarh and getting monthly salary and that the non-

applicant/appellant-husband has been paying monthly maintenance of

Rs.2000/- to the minor son as fixed by the trial Court and that till June, 2015

the maintenance amount has been paid. It is also clarified that the non-

applicant/appellant-husband is working as Sale Representative with M/s

Singal Enterprises, Sector 29, Iron Market, Chandigarh. The non-

applicant/appellant-husband has claimed that his salary is Rs.8000/- per

month and not Rs.35,000/- per month.

We have considered the averments in the application.

No document has been placed on record by the appellant-

husband indicative of the income of the non-applicant/appellant-husband to

be Rs.8000/- per month but taking into consideration the education

qualification of the non-applicant/appellant-husband and the status of the

company for which he is working, it is unbelievable that he is getting only a

sum of Rs.8000/- per month.

It is not disputed that the applicant/respondent-wife is working.

Counsel for the applicant/respondent-wife has submitted that she is earning

only Rs.22,000/- per month.

2 of 4
13-08-2018 01:41:53 :::
CMM-200-2015 in FAO-M-343-2015 -3-

Taking into consideration the totality of the above

circumstances, we find that the non-applicant/appellant-husband would not

be earning less than Rs.20,000/- per month. Even if, it is presumed that the

applicant/respondent-wife is also earning and has got earning capacity of

the similar nature, still it cannot be ignored that it is the joint responsibility

of both the parents to look after the minor child.

It has been informed by counsel for both the parties that a sum

of Rs.2000/- per month was ordered to be paid in the year 2012 in

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It has been informed that though this application has been filed

in the year 2015 but after the matter had been sent in the year 2016 for

mediation, it remained untraced for some period.

It is also an admitted fact that after the year 2015, no amount

has been paid to the applicant/respondent-wife for the education expenses of

the son who is being brought up by the applicant/respondent-wife by

meeting the expenses single handed.

Counsel for the non-applicant/appellant-husband has placed

reliance on Ram Lal Vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur 1995 (1) P.L.R. 527 (PH),

in support of his contention that in proceedings under Section 24 and 25 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, no maintenance allowance is payable to the child.

We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the

non-applicant/appellant-husband and are of the opinion that the said

judgment does not lay down an absolute law that in all the circumstances,

welfare of the child can be ignored.

In this case, as discussed above, the joint responsibility to bring

up the child, is being shouldered only by the applicant/respondent-wife for

3 of 4
13-08-2018 01:41:53 :::
CMM-200-2015 in FAO-M-343-2015 -4-

which she is certainly entitled to be compensated even if she is an earning

hand. A sum of Rs.2000/- which was awarded in the year 2012 in

proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, deserves to be

enhanced taking the judicial notice of the enhancement of the prices in the

last few years. The said amount is deserved to be enhanced to a sum of

Rs.5000/- per month in order to enable the applicant/respondent-wife to

bring up the child who is stated to be undertaking the medical subject

studies at this stage. A sum of Rs.5000/- per month is assessed as

maintenance pendente lite payable to the applicant/respondent-wife for the

above said reasons. The said amount is payable with effect from the date of

application i.e. December, 2015. Litigation expenses are assessed as

Rs.25,000/-. A sum of Rs.15,000/-, earlier paid, will be deductible from the

amount of Rs.25,000/-.

Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is

allowed in above manner.

For payment of the maintenance pendente lite calculated upto

30.09.2018 and balance of litigation expenses, adjourned to 06.09.2018.


harsha JUDGE

4 of 4
13-08-2018 01:41:53 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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