SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santosh Kumar Ajrunahi vs Reena Verma on 24 May, 2019

FAO-778-2019 1


117 FAO-778-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision : 24.05.2019

Santosh Kumar Arjunahi

… Appellant


Reeta Verma


Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the appellant.

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.10.2018 passed

by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad,

whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-wife in a pending petition under

Section 13 of the Act filed by the appellant-husband, has been allowed and

the appellant-husband has been directed to pay a sum of `4,000/- per month

to the respondent-wife towards maintenance of the school going children

and household expenses. Besides, the appellant-husband has been directed

to pay a sum of `4500/- to the respondent-wife towards litigation expenses.

1 of 4
23-06-2019 15:49:30 :::
FAO-778-2019 2

The factum of marriage and birth of two children is not disputed.

The appellant-husband has challenged the order passed by the learned trial

Court on the ground that on account of the physical and mental harassment

caused by the respondent-wife, the appellant went into depression,

rendering him jobless, whereas on the other hand the respondent-wife is a

graduate and earning `30,000/- per month from the tuitions given by her to

25-30 students. Still further, the impugned order has been assailed on the

ground that the respondent-wife and the children are living on the first floor

of her matrimonial home and therefore, she does not require any

maintenance for herself and the children.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find

any merit in the present appeal.

Perusal of the impugned order would show that a finding has been

recorded by the learned trial Court that as per her own admission, the

respondent-wife is giving tuitions to 6-7 students at home. It was further

admitted by her that her husband i.e. appellant is bearing the school fee

expenses and expenses towards uniform(s) etc. of the children besides the

electricity bills of the house. The appellant-husband had admitted that he

was running a Karyana shop in the premises owned by his parents. It was

further found that as the husband did not disclose his means of earning

except running of a karyana shop, non disclosure thereof, would not give

any liberty to him to escape his liability to maintain his wife and children.

Thus, having noticed the lifestyle and status of the parties, the learned trial

Court assessed the income of the appellant-husband between `12,000/- and

`15,000/- per month. Similarly considering the fact that the respondent-wife

had conceded that she was giving tuitions to the children at home, her

2 of 4
23-06-2019 15:49:31 :::
FAO-778-2019 3

monthly income was assessed to be between `3,000/- and `4,000/-. Thus,

taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances,

balancing equitities, provable range of income of the husband, necessities of

the life and other necessities of the school going children, learned trial

Court has directed the appellant-husband to pay `4,000/- as maintenance

pendente lite “i.e. maintenance of the school going children and household

expenses” from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the

divorce petition. Apart from the aforesaid amount, an amount of `4500/-

was awarded as litigation expenses.

In our opinion, grant of `4,000/- per month as maintenance of the

school going children and household expenses, is perfectly justified. Even if

the respondent-wife is earning `3,000/- to `4,000/- per month from the

tuitions, the same cannot be considered sufficient to maintain herself and

two school going children of the parties. Admittedly, except giving tuitions

at home, the respondent-wife is not possessed of any other means so as to

sustain herself and the minor school going children and to bear the

household expenses and the expenses of other necessities of life.

On the other hand, the appellant-husband is running a Karyana

shop and considering the fact that in these days even a daily wager would be

earning between `9,000 to `10,000 per month, the income from the shop of

the husband cannot be assessed lower than than that.

As per Section 24 of the Act, pending divorce proceedings, the

husband is liable to maintain his wife and children. He cannot escape this

liability merely alleging that the wife has caused mental agony and

harassment to him, especially when such aspects are yet to be adjudicated

upon by the learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence.

3 of 4
23-06-2019 15:49:31 :::
FAO-778-2019 4

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present

appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.


pooja saini

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes

Whether reportable? Yes

4 of 4
23-06-2019 15:49:31 :::

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