SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Siddharth Saboo vs Smt. Manisha Saboo on 7 April, 2017

1

17.

o.9

C.O. 1616 of 2008
C.O. 1582 of 2008
With
CAN 3904 of 2016

Siddharth Saboo
Vs.

Smt. Manisha Saboo

Mrs. Manju Agarwal,
Mr. Bajrang Manot,
Ms. Barkha Kumari.

…..for the petitioner.

The petitioner wife has challenged the order dated January 30, 2008 passed by

learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.29 of 2005 arising

out of MAT Suit No.31 of 2005 by filing an application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India which is registered as C.O. No.1616 of 2008.

Similarly, the petitioner husband has challenged the same order dated January

30, 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case

No.29 of 2005 by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

which is registered as C.O. No.1582 of 2008. The petitioner wife also filed CAN 3904 of

2016 in connection with C.O. No.1616 of 2008 praying for enhancement of the amount

of maintenance pendente lite and litigation cost.

Since both the petitioners have challenged the same order by preferring two

separate applications before this Court, I am inclined to dispose of both the applications

by this common judgment and order. I would like to consider the issue of enhancement
2

of maintenance pendente lite prayed by the petitioner wife by filing a separate

application being CAN 3904 of 2016 by this common judgment.

The husband being the petitioner of C.O. No.1582 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to

as the opposite party husband) instituted MAT Suit No.31 of 2005 against the petitioner

of C.O. No.1616 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner wife) before the court of

learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore praying for divorce under Section 13

of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner wife filed an application in connection with the

said matrimonial proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (being

registered as Misc. Case No.29 of 2005) praying for maintenance pendente lite @

Rs.20,000/- per month for herself, Rs.20,000/- for her minor daughter per month and

Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

On January 30, 2008 learned Judge of the trial court disposed of the application

of the petitioner wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by granting relief to the

petitioner wife to get maintenance pendente lite from the opposite party husband @

Rs.4,000/- per month for the minor daughter and Rs.3,000/- from the opposite party

husband towards litigation cost. The said order is under challenge before this Court both

by the petitioner wife and the opposite party husband.

None appears on behalf of the opposite party husband on call, though Mr.

Debasis Roy and Mr. Kaushik Dey represented the opposite party husband before this

Court on May 4, 2016.

Ms. Manju Agarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner wife has produced

copy of notice dated March 28, 2017 and the tracking report collected from the website

of Indian Post showing delivery of fresh notice in connection with the hearing of the

applications before this Court on the opposite party husband. Let the said notice and

tracking report be kept on record. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite
3

party husband, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the applications pending

from the year 2008.

Ms. Agarwal contends that the opposite party husband has intentionally

suppressed his income from the business by showing his annual income of Rs.2,498/-

in the Income Tax Return for the year 2006-2007. She further contends that the

petitioner wife had to show the income from the share of the companies in the Income

Tax Return for the year 2005-2006, though the said income was reduced in the next

financial year. By referring to the evidence in chief of the petitioner wife filed before the

trial court to show the expenditure incurred by the petitioner wife for the education and

upkeep of the minor daughter, she submits that the annual expenditure for the minor

daughter in the year 2006 was about Rs.2,21,280/-. Accordingly, the petitioner wife has

prayed for enhancement of the amount maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial

court.

On consideration of the evidence in chief of the opposite party husband filed

before the trial court, I find that the opposite party husband has shown his monthly

income as Rs.2,500/- per month and he has also stated that he had to incur an

expenditure of Rs.2,000/- per month for the medical treatment of his mother. It passes

my comprehension to believe that a person earning Rs.2,500/- per month can spend

Rs.2,000/- per month for the medical expenditure of the mother, without having any

other source of income for maintenance of his livelihood. Admittedly, the opposite party

husband is maintaining a car and he runs a business of his own, though the said

income from the business is not reflected in the Income Tax Return of the opposite party

husband. Similarly, the income of the petitioner wife exceeds Rs.2 lakh per annum as

reflected from the Income Tax Return for the year 2005-2006. It has, thus, been

established before the learned court below that the petitioner wife has independent
4

income for maintenance of her livelihood. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the

impugned order under challenge in the revision, so far as the refusal of maintenance

pendente lite to the petitioner wife by the trial court under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act is concerned.

With regard to the maintenance of the minor daughter of the petitioner wife, the

amount of monthly maintenance fixed by the trial court at Rs.4,000/- per month, I am

informed that the minor daughter was aged about 9 years when the application was

moved by the petitioner wife before the trial court for granting maintenance pendente lite

in the year 2008. I am also informed that the minor daughter was studying in Modern

High School, which is a reputed school in Kolkata and for which the expenditure to be

incurred by the petitioner wife is reflected in the evidence in chief of the petitioner wife

produced before the trial court.

On close scrutiny of the break-up of the expenditure to be incurred by the

petitioner wife for education and upkeep of the minor daughter, I find that some of the

items of expenditure may not be taken into consideration for deciding the amount of

maintenance of the minor daughter, namely social outing and entertainment @

Rs.1,000/- per month, governance @ Rs.1,000/- per month, clothes and accessories @

Rs.3,000/- per month etc. On an analysis of the break-up of the expenditure to be

incurred by the petitioner wife for maintenance and upkeep of the child, I find that the

maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month will be sufficient to meet the annual expenditure

for the education and upkeep of the minor child. I would like to make it clear that the

opposite party husband has suppressed his annual income from the business. In view of

my above findings, I am inclined to enhance the amount of maintenance pendente lite

for the minor daughter of the petitioner wife w.e.f. the date of the order passed by the

trial court.

5

The natural corollary of my above observation is that the petitioner wife is entitled

to get maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.15,000/- per month for maintenance of the minor

daughter w.e.f. January 30, 2008 till the date of disposal of the matrimonial suit by the

trial court. The opposite party husband is directed to pay current maintenance of each

month @ Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner wife for the minor daughter within 10th

day of next succeeding month. The opposite party husband is further directed to pay the

entire amount of arrears of maintenance after adjustment of the amount of maintenance

already paid by the opposite party husband to the petitioner within a period of three

months from the date of this order i.e. within July 17, 2017 in default the opposite party

husband will have to pay interest on the amount of arrears of maintenance @ 8% per

annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation of the amount of arrears of

maintenance.

With the above direction, both the revisional applications and CAN are disposed

of.

Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of

information and necessary action.

(R. K. Bag, J.)

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.

STUDY REPORTS

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