SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vivek Malik vs Sujata on 4 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No. 203 (2 cases) CR-8064-2016
Date of decision : 04.02.2019

Vivek Malik ….. Petitioner

VERSUS

Sujata ….. Respondent

2. CR-4425-2017

Sujata ….. Petitioner

VERSUS

Vivek Malik ….. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P. S. Poonia, Advocate, for the respondent.

*******
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL)

The present order shall dispose of two petitions being CR-8064-

2016 “Vivek Malik vs Sujata” and CR-4425-2017 “Sujata vs Vivek Malik” as

both these petitions arise out of a common order dated 23.09.2016, passed

by the District Judge, Family Court, Rohtak (for short, the Trial Court).

The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for

adjudicating upon the present petitions are that Vivek Malik (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘husband’) filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(1a) and 13

(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for dissolution

of the marriage between him and Sujata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘wife’)

on the grounds of mental and physical cruelty as also desertion.

During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, the wife

filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking therein

interim maintenance and litigation expenses. In her application, the wife

1 of 4
10-02-2019 06:35:55 :::
CR-8064-2016 and CR-4425-2017 [2]

disclosed that she was working as a Lecturer in Tika Ram Girls College,

Sonepat and gave details of the expenses being incurred by her on the

education and upkeep of the minor girl child of the parties namely Mehar

Malik. She also averred therein that the husband was earning `6 lakhs per

month from a factory on Hisar Road, Industrial Area, Rohtak as also from

seventeen shops in Panipat and from six acres of agricultural land owned by

him. The husband filed a reply to the aforesaid application and inter alia

submitted therein that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance as she

herself was earning `55,500/- per month. So far as the averments with

regard to his assets were concerned, he submitted that he was running a

small unit in partnership with his mother wherein nut and bolts were

manufactured. It was denied that he was receiving any rent from any shop at

Panipat and that he owned any agricultural land.

After considering the stand taken by both the parties as also

sifting the evidence led by them, the Trial Court assessed the monthly

expenditure on the education and upkeep of the minor girl child of the

parties and after going through the income tax returns of the husband which

depicted his annual income for the year 2015-16 to be `4,41,761/-, directed

the husband to pay `13,000/- per month in addition to one time litigation

expenses of `5,500/-. Such direction was given by the Trial Court after

observing in the order that it was the responsibility of both the parties to

look after their minor daughter.

Learned counsel for the husband submits that his client has no

objection to the grant of the awarded amount to the minor daughter of the

2 of 4
10-02-2019 06:35:55 :::
CR-8064-2016 and CR-4425-2017 [3]

parties. However, he submits that no such amount could have been granted

in an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Act.

A perusal of the order impugned in the present proceedings

shows that the Trial Court, after considering the evidence which had come

on record, assessed the monthly expenses being incurred by the wife towards

education and upkeep of the minor daughter of the parties and after

observing that it was the responsibility of both the parents to take care of

their child, directed the husband to pay `13,000/-per month as maintenance

pendente lite. Such direction was given after the husband had produced his

income tax returns for the year 2015-16 which depicted his monthly income

to be `40,000/- (approximately).

The order passed by the Trial Court further shows that the

awarded maintenance was only for the welfare of the minor daughter of the

parties and in this regard paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order are reproduced

below for ready reference: –

“5. Documents annexed by the applicant have been perused by me.
Income Tax Return of the petitioner for the assessment years 2011-12 to
2015-16 have been perused by me. In Income Tax Return for the year
2015-16, income of the petitioner has been shown to be `4,41,761/-.
Photocopy of the partnership deed reveal that Vivek Malik and Asha
Malik had altered clause no. 13 of the partnership deed dated
12.12.2004 which was executed since they had been carrying the
business of jobwork and manufacturing of nut, bolts, precision and
turned auto components. Photocopy of the various receipts revel
expenditure incurred by the applicant on the education of child Mehar.
It transpires that child is studying in Shri Ram Global School and in the
receipts dates 21.7.2015, 23.10.2015 and 21.04.2015 tuition fees of
school has been shown to be `13500/- besides other charges.

6. It is therefore evident from the documents that child Mehar is
studying in one of the best schools of Rohtak and court is conscious that
besides education expenses, good amount of money is spent for
upbringing of the child i.e. for food, clothes, other activities etc.
Though it is the responsibility of the husband and wife to take care of
the child, yet the father is more under obligation to take care of the
child, even though both the parties of the child are working. Income

3 of 4
10-02-2019 06:35:55 :::
CR-8064-2016 and CR-4425-2017 [4]

Tax Returns which have been filed by businessmen are their own self
declarations only even though they may be earning much more than
reflected in Income Tax Return.”

The above extract clearly reveals that the amount ordered to be

paid by the husband through the impugned order is for the welfare of the

minor daughter of the parties. Such order is not liable to be set aside only

because it has been passed in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Act as a

minor child of the parties in similar circumstances is entitled to the same

maintenance under Section 26 of the Act.

Keeping in view the welfare of the minor daughter of the

parties, on this technical ground this Court is not inclined to set aside the

impugned order especially when learned counsel for the husband has stated

that his client has no objection in paying maintenance for his minor

daughter.

In the petition filed by the wife there is no scope for any further

enhancement in the awarded maintenance as the amount granted through the

impugned order is found to be just and adequate.

Resultantly, both the petitions being CR-8064-2016 “Vivek

Malik vs Sujata” and CR-4425-2017 “Sujata vs Vivek Malik” are dismissed.

No costs.

04.02.2019 [ DEEPAK SIBAL ]
shamsher JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4
10-02-2019 06:35:55 :::

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