Vishesh Mathur vs Neel Kiran Mathur
2003 Latest Caselaw 824 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Jain, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 12th March, 2003 thereby disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') filed by the wife claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The application has been allowed and the husband has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The petitioner Vishesh Mathur is facing a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. The wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking grant of interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- from the husband with the averments and allegations that she has no independent source of income and she and her daughter, (i.e. daughter of the parties) are dependent upon her parents for their maintenance and up-keep; that the husband is a man of means and has various sources of income besides having family properties at `Star Villa, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj' and his rental income from the said properties is not less than Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per month. He is engaged in the computer business being run under the name and style of M/s.Key Information Technology and M/s.Kirvish Forms and his income from those businesses is not less than Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. It is also stated that he has no liability except of his own maintenance.

3. The husband contested the application and filed reply disputing that the wife-applicant has no source of income and pleaded that she is an educated lady and is working with her brother Amrit Raj in his firm and is also doing astrology work besides giving tuitions and thereby earning not less than Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- from those sources. It is not denied by the husband that he was doing computer business under the name and style of M/s.Key Information Technology but it was sought to be explained that as the said computer business was not doing well, therefore, it was closed down since September, 2000 as someone complained to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). He pleaded that presently he was employed with M/s.B.M.Properties Pvt.Ltd. at a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month which was hardly sufficient for his own maintenance.

4. Learned trial court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record came to the conclusion that the wife has no independent source of income sufficient to maintain her and her daughter and discarded the salary certificate issued by M/s.B.M.Properties Pvt.Ltd. in regard to the employment of the husband and returned a finding that the income of the husband was not less than Rs.15,000/- per month even if the income from other sources is not taken into consideration and accordingly passed the impugned order.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Ms.Jyoti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on proper appreciation of the facts, circumstances and material obtaining on record. According to her, the husband was earlier engaged in the business of supply of computer peripherals and consumables and he was mainly supplying articles to Shaw Wallace, New Delhi but owing to an alert/caution notice issued by the CVC, said business of the husband ran into rough weather and he suffered a set back and had to close down the said business. For his subsistence, he had to seek employment with M/s.B.M.Properties Pvt. Ltd. at a salary of Rs.3,000/- which is not sufficient for his own maintenance. It is urged that the trial court has erred in not relying and acting upon the salary certificate issued by M/s.B.M.Properties Pvt.Ltd. while assessing the income of the husband and awarding maintenance to the wife. The counsel for the petitioner-husband has also referred to certain averments and allegations made by the wife in her petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act stating that soon after the marriage, she realised that she had been duped as the husband was only a 12th class pass, having no business of computer and there was also dispute in regard to the property at `Star Villa, 3, Ansari Road, New Delhi'. It is alleged that the wife made clear admissions of the fact that the husband has no fixed and tangible income and, therefore, she could not be allowed to urge now that the petitioner is engaged in the business of computer peripherals and consumables and has property income from said `Star Villa' running into Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/-.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has urged that the husband has concealed his real income and has produced a sham document in the shape of salary certificate issued by M/s.B.M. Properties Pvt.Ltd. which has been rightly discarded by the learned trial court and consequently the impugned order is justified.

7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material obtaining on record, this Court is of the opinion that the salary certificate issued by M/s.B.M.Properties Pvt.Ltd. cannot be accepted on its face value for the purpose of assessing the actual income of the husband. It is no wonder that such certificate had been procured only for the purpose of these proceedings and to escape the liability to pay maintenance to the wife and the child. From the totality of the circumstances appearing on record, the respondent appears to be a man of means even if it is believed that he has closed down his business of computer peripherals and consumables, having regard to his family background and the qualification and experience which he has in the field of computers. Though it may be difficult to make an accurate assessment of the income of the petitioner-husband because the same is within the special knowledge of the petitioner but having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case obtaining on record, the family background and the qualification and experience of the petitioner in the line of computer peripherals and consumables, this Court is of the view that even by modest standard, the total income of the petitioner would not be less than Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month.

8. Now, the question is about quantifying the interim maintenance. Admittedly, the wife needs maintenance for herself as well as child of the parties who is living with her mother. So, the petitioner has liability not only towards the wife but also towards his child who is in the care and custody of the mother. Keeping these facts in view, in the opinion of this Court, award of maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.3,500/- per month in favor of the wife would meet the ends of justice.

9. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance pendente lite as awarded by the learned trial court is decreased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month with effect from the date of application, the litigation expenses, however, remaining unchanged. The arrears of maintenance at the revised rate shall be paid by the petitioner within six weeks from today.