SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Varun Goel vs Shalini on 11 July, 2018

234 CMM-58-2017 in FAO-2444-2016

VARUN GOEL
V/S
SHALINI

Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant-husband.

Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondent-wife.

*****

The appellant-husband, aggrieved by the dismissal of his

petition for divorce, has preferred appeal before this Court, which has been

admitted for hearing.

During pendency of the appeal, the respondent-wife has filed

an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of

maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month and

litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- claiming that she is unemployed and

dependent upon her old parents and is incapable of maintaining herself

whereas the appellant-husband earns a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month having

moveable and immoveable properties. He has got no other liability.

The appellant-husband has filed reply pleading therein that on

earlier occasion, the parties had decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual

consent by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A sum of Rs.8 lakhs in the shape of bank draft was paid for the marriage

expenses and for future maintenance. He has denied his income as alleged

by the respondent-wife but has admitted his income only to the extent of

Rs.5000/- per month claiming that he is residing in a rented accommodation

along with his parents.

1 of 4
22-07-2018 08:52:06 :::
CMM-58-2017 in FAO-2444-2016 -2-

We have heard the counsel for the appellant-husband as well as

counsel for the respondent-wife.

Counsel for the appellant-husband has contended that earlier

the appellant-husband had a business with his father as his father was

running a shop of confectionery in Ambala Cantt. but on account of the

litigation with the respondent-wife, he is not running any business with his

father and shop stands closed.

We have considered the contentions of counsel for both the

parties and taken into consideration the fact that a sum of Rs.3000/- has

been ordered to be paid by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife in

proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The appellant-husband is an able bodied person. He is educated and claims

that he is a graduate but so far as income is concerned, he has admitted his

income to be Rs.5000/- per month but the source of income has not been

disclosed, compelling us to arrive at a conclusion that the facts and actual

income is being concealed from this Court.

In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate on the basis of

reasonable assessment to determine the income of the appellant-husband.

He being an educated, able bodied person, even if presumed to be a skilled

labourer, would be earning not less than a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. A

sum of Rs.8000/- per month is considered to be reasonable amount to be

paid by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife as maintenance

pendente lite. The said amount will be payable with effect from the date of

application i.e. March, 2017. It is made clear that any amount paid towards

the maintenance in proceedings under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, would be adjustable against the amount of

2 of 4
22-07-2018 08:52:06 :::
CMM-58-2017 in FAO-2444-2016 -3-

Rs.8000/- determined by this Court. Litigation expenses are assessed as

Rs.40,000/-. Any amount earlier paid towards interim litigation expenses

will be deductible from the amount of Rs.40,000/-.

We have considered the contention of counsel for the appellant-

husband that a sum of Rs.8 lakhs had been paid to the respondent-wife in

the year 2013 and that the said amount would carry interest which is being

enjoyed by the respondent-wife and that the said amount should be

considered adequate enough for the survival of the respondent-wife. We do

not find any force in the said contention of the counsel for the appellant-

husband as the respondent-wife has explained that the said amount had been

given to her for her spending and that she is even ready to return the said

amount. Even if, we presume that the said amount is returnable to the

appellant-husband, still it will not affect the quantum of maintenance

pendente lite as while determining the maintenance pendente lite, we have

taken into consideration the said amount pleaded in the application and

awarded a lesser amount. In ordinary routine, the maintenance pendente lite,

in the present case, would not have been less than Rs.10,000/- per month.

Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is

allowed in above manner.

For payment of entire arrears of maintenance pendente lite and

litigation expenses, adjourned to 19.11.2018.

It is made clear that in case of non-payment of the arrears of

maintenance on the next date of hearing, the said act would entail adverse

legal consequences against the appellant-husband.

Parties are present in person.

3 of 4
22-07-2018 08:52:06 :::
CMM-58-2017 in FAO-2444-2016 -4-

We have made an attempt to bring about reconciliation.

Presently, there does not appear to be any chance of any

settlement. However, the respondent-wife has expressed her desire to

resume cohabitation. She has submitted that no doubt she had received a

sum of Rs.8 lakhs but that amount was handed over to her for expenses.

She has offered to return the amount to the appellant-husband, in case the

appellant-husband is ready to permit her to re-join his company in the

matrimonial home. The appellant-husband has expressed his reluctance for

re-union and is adamant to part company stating that he has been harassed

by the respondent-wife.

To come up on the date fixed for payment of arrears of

maintenance.

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

July 11, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
harsha JUDGE

4 of 4
22-07-2018 08:52:06 :::

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