Sh. Sudhanshu Shekhar Sinha vs Mrs. Sumira Sinha
2006 Latest Caselaw 1763 Del

JUDGMENT

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against order dated 25.7.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi allowing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 10,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 5000/- per month for the minor girl child w.e.f. from the date of the application i.e., 16.7.2004 and litigation expenses of Rs. 4000/-.

2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Dey Advocate learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deepti Advocate learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.

3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was married to respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as respondent) on 30.11.2004 according to Hindu Rites. The parties resided for a few days at Patna and then shifted to Delhi. The petitioner was working in the Embassy of Italy as Commercial Assistant/Commercial Collaborator. A girl child was born to the parties on 7.12.2001.

4. The parties could not pull well together. The matter was reported to the police by the respondent on 28.1.2003 at Noida. Reconciliation efforts were made by Women Cell but failed. The parties kept blaming each other. The petitioner then filed a petition for grant of divorce on 12.3.2003 at Faridabad. Again efforts for reconciliation were made. Divorce petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and the complaint to the Women Cell was withdrawn by the respondent. But, again the relations became strained and once again the matter was reported to the police by the respondent and a case under Section 406-498-A IPC was registered against the petitioner. Again the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

5. The respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. In the said application the respondent after giving the introductory pleas as mentioned above has averred that the petitioner was working in the Embassy of Italy as Commercial Assistant/Commercial Collaborator and was getting Rs. 28,000/- per month apart from perks and other financial benefits and that he had immoveable assets at Patna and a share in the joint property of his ancestors. It is averred in the application that the petitioner has no liability except to maintain the respondent and the child. The respondent claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and the child. She gave a breakup like Rs. 3500/- as rent; Rs. 4000/- for her day to day expenses; Rs. 4000/- for needs of the daughter and Rs. 5000/- for miscellaneous expenses. The total of the breakup comes to Rs. 16500/-. She submitted that she had a sister who was to be married. She does not want to become burden on her parents and her parents are not in a position to support her.

6. In the reply the petitioner pleaded that respondent was a graduate from Delhi University. She is qualified software professional and passed out from NIIT. She was gainfully employed before the marriage and even continued after the marriage. The petitioner denied that he was getting Rs. 28000/- per month or was having any immoveable assets or ancestral property. He asserted that his carry home salary was Rs. 25,200/- per month out of which he was paying Rs. 4300/- per month as rent and has taken some loan which he is paying back @ Rs. 10,200/- per month and averred that he was spending about Rs. 6000/- towards food conveyance and miscellaneous expenses and further alleged that as per qualifications of the respondent she must be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is submitted that the petitioner was the only son of his parents and has certain social and financial responsibilities.

7. In the impugned order after referring to the pleadings of both the sides as already reproduced above the learned Additional District Judge has opined that the petitioner non-applicant had admitted that his take home salary was Rs. 25,200/- and then the learned judge referred to the details of the expenses being incurred by the petitioner-husband. The learned Judge has also noted the contention of the respondent-wife that before marriage she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month but had to leave that service because the petitioner husband was against the idea of his wife doing any job and she was therefore unemployed since then.

8. It is observed in the impugned order that the loan being repaid by the petitioner was taken for buying a car for himself and that the petitioner-husband had admittedly received Rs. 42,686/- towards family assistance allowance from the embassy for the period 1.1.2005 to 30.6.2005. Before the trial court the contentions on behalf of the petitioner-husband were that he was having slip disc, kidney and prostate problems and had to incur expenses on medicines and explained that because of such ailments he had to buy a car on loan. As against this respondent had contended that the petitioner-husband was getting disbursement from his office for all medical expenses on which plea the petitioner-husband remained silent and that the car is a luxury for him.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Addition District Judge has granted more than what was demanded by the respondent-wife. Secondly the paying capacity of the husband was not minutely examined and that the maintenance was on a much higher side and that the respondent could get a job. As against this learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the respondent is looking for a job but because of the technological development in the computers and as she could not update her knowledge due to harassment and litigation, she was unable to get any job till now and that because of the petitioner wishes she had to leave the previous job. Further that the maintenance is rather on the lower side because a 4.1/2 years old girl child is to be brought up.

10. There is no dispute that the petitioner-husband is employed in the Embassy of Italy and is drawing about Rs. 28,000/- per month besides other perks like medical reimbursement etc. and has also bought a TATA Sumo for himself. There is no dispute that he can get about Rs. 1,00,000/- per year as family assistance allowance provided he has will to get this amount. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent never objected to sign any application to the Embassy of Italy as suggested by the petitioner provided its particulars were explained to her not in Italian language but in English language or any other language understood by the respondent. In my view, there is no reason why translation of any document which is be signed by the wife should not be made available to her, specially when the parties have lost mutual trust.

11. I have noticed that the petitioner-husband has not given any details in support of his reply as to wherefrom the respondent should be believed to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. I also do not find any force in the contention that the maintenance granted is more than what has been demanded in the application. In fact total of the breakup of the necessary expenses for the wife and the child comes to Rs. 16,500/-, whereas she has been allowed Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and the child.

12. Needless to say that while dealing with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the contentions of the parties and the facts and circumstances are appreciated in the background of the status of the families and the income of the respective parties. These days even a maid servant will in all get more than Rs. 5000/- per month (including food and clothing) for bringing up a girl child. Still there is no guarantee about the safety and security of the child.

13. In these days of rising prices Rs. 5,000/- per month for the minor girl child is the minimum possible keeping in view the background of the families and it is obvious that the girl child is being brought up in safe hands.

14. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that maintenance pendente lite fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is reasonable keeping in view the income and status of the parties, even if the petitioner chooses not to get any family assistance allowance from his employer. In the result I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional District Judge so as to invite interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

15. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of any proceedings pending between the parties.