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 :::
