224 CMM-200-2015 in FAO-M-343-2015
RAJEEV KAPOOR
V/S
RASHMI KAPOOR
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.
(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE
August 06, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
harsha JUDGE
4 of 4
13-08-2018 01:41:53 :::
