Manmohan Singh vs Kushwant Kaur
2013 Latest Caselaw 1954 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        C.M. (M) No.268 of 2012 & C.M. No.4077/2012 (for stay)

                                        Decided on : 30th April, 2013

MANMOHAN SINGH                                    ....... Petitioner
            Through:             Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate.

                       Versus

KUSHWANT KAUR                                       ....... Respondent
           Through:              Mr. J.P. Sengh, Senior Advocate with
                                 Mr. A.C. Bhasin & Mr. Sumeet Batra,
                                 Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

against the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge by virtue of which the petitioner was directed to pay an

interim maintenance @ `12,500/- per month to the respondent /wife apart

from payment of `11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the amount of `12,500/- which has been fixed by the learned Additional

District Judge by way of an interim maintenance is on the basis of the fact

that the petitioner is earning a sum of `50,000/- per month while as there

is no finding to that effect and even if it is assumed that there is a finding,

that is totally based on conjecture and surmises. It has been stated that

previously there was a matrimonial litigation between the parties which

was got compromised by the learned Additional District Judge on

22.2.2010 and by way of the said compromise, the petitioner was directed

to pay a sum of `5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards

maintenance, which is continued to be paid by him. In addition to this,

the petitioner was also directed to provide necessary grocery items for the

purpose of maintaining the kitchen. The said order was being complied

with. In any case, it has been stated that grocery items would not entail

expenses of almost `7,500/- per month so as to result in payment of a

total sum of `12,500/- per month to the respondent by way of interim

maintenance.

3. Mr. J.P. Sengh, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has

contested the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and has taken the court through the impugned order. It has been

contended by him that the impugned order which runs into 16 pages is

not only a reasoned one but is also supported by number of judgments of

the Apex Court and the High Court so far as the grant of interim

maintenance is concerned. In any case, it has been stated that before the

present interim maintenance @`12,500/- per month was fixed, the

learned trial court had also arrived at a specific finding that the income of

the petitioner was `50,000/- per month as the petitioner has not been able

to produce any evidence to show his exact income and there is bound to

be some guess work or a conjecture to creep in while fixing up an interim

maintenance.

4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have gone

through the impugned order. I prima facie find merit in the contention of

the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the impugned order

dated 13.12.2011 is a speaking and a well-reasoned order which does not

call for any interference by this court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

5. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner and the

respondent got married on 20.12.1992 according to Sikh rites and

customs in Delhi. The parties were blessed with a son, who is stated to

be studying in U.S.A. There was also a previous matrimonial litigation

between the parties initiated by the petitioner by filing a petition bearing

No.180/2009 under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for

grant of divorce. In the said petition, the learned Additional District

Judge on the application of the respondent/wife under Section 24 of

Hindu Marriage Act, had fixed the maintenance @ `13,000/- per month

apart from litigation expenses of `11,000/- vide a speaking order dated

16.1.2010. The reasons given by the court for fixing up the maintenance

@ `13,000/- per month are reproduced herein below:-

"The applicant wife has stated that the petitioner is having income of about `5 lakhs p.m. and is maintaining lavish lifestyle. On the other hand petitioner/husband has stated that his yearly income is `1.5 lacs only. Petitioner has admitted to own one car Indica, and also stated that he is managing the business of K.L.M. on behalf of his son who is studying in USA. He has admitted availing services of maid servant. He has admitted having passport and flying to various countries like USA, China & Bangkok though occasionally. He is also paying installment of bank loan of about `9,800/- p.m. therefore his claim that he is earning only `1.5 lakhs p.a. is not believable. The status and the lifestyle that the petitioner is maintaining clearly show that he must be spending much more than `1.5 lakhs p.a. on his own expenses, as about `10,000/- p.m. alone are being repaid by him to the bank as part of his installment. This is also supported from the fact that the petitioner is maintaining car, has credit card and availing services of maid servant. His son is admittedly also studying in America. The respondent/applicant on the other hand has stated that she is unemployed and not earning at the moment. The petitioner/husband has stated that she is entitled to U.S. $ 1500 p.m. as she is a green card holder

and this amount is being given by the U.S. to its citizen as unemployment stipend. But there is no proof in this regard nor any document in respect of the same has been filed by the petitioner."

6. Subsequent thereto, the aforesaid matrimonial litigation was

compromised and an amount of `5,000/- per month apart from grocery

items were to be provided by the petitioner to the respondent. It may be

pertinent here to mention that both the respondent and the petitioner are

living in the same house though in different rooms. It has also been

stated that after entering into compromise, the petitioner has stopped

paying not only the maintenance of `5,000/- per month but has also

stopped running the kitchen by getting the grocery items. He had also

initiated a fresh divorce petition on the ground of cruelty. It was in these

proceedings that the respondent herein filed an application on 16.10.2010

for passing an order with regard to interim maintenance. The respondent

had alleged that the petitioner was enjoying a luxurious life and was a

man of means. It was stated that he has installed expensive LCDs, he has

a plot of land at Rajpura Road, Panchsheel, Chandigarh and various bank

accounts and other saving schemes and also has a rental income of

`9,000/- per month. It was stated that his monthly income is `3 lacs and

he is maintaining two cars. Apart from this, it was also stated that he is

funding the education of his child, who is studying in U.S.A. The

respondent/applicant had claimed that she is entitled to maintenance @

`50,000/- per month apart from litigation expenses of `33,000/-.

7. The petitioner contested the claim of the respondent and stated that

he is only earning `12,500/- per month and so far as the other amenities

or the assets are concerned, they were denied by the petitioner. it was

stated by him that he is paying a sum of `5,000/- per month as agreed

between the parties by way of maintenance and is also getting the

necessary grocery items. Therefore, it was contended that there was no

reason for the court to fix an amount of `12,500/- by way of an interim

maintenance more so when the maintenance was being paid by the

petitioner to the respondent and the only thing which was in issue was the

payment on account of grocery items. The learned trial court took into

consideration the pronouncements of this court and Apex Court in Sudhir

Diwan vs. Tripta Diwan; 147 (2008) DLT 756 and Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs.

District Judge, Dehradun & Others; (1997) 7 SCC respectively. This

court and the Supreme Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes,

there is an invariably tendency of the wife to present inflated or

exaggerated income of the husband as a consequence of which some

guess work on the part of the court is permissible. It is in keeping with

these pronouncements that the trial court assessed the income of the

petitioner to be around `50,000/- per month. After assuming the income

of the petitioner to be `50,000/- per month, the trial court permitted the

petitioner to retain 3/4th of his net income and to pay 1/4th of the income,

which comes to `12,500/- per month, to the respondent towards interim

maintenance.

8. I have no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by the

learned trial court. I do not find any incorrectness, impropriety or

illegality in the impugned order in fixing up the interim maintenance @

`12,500/- per month especially in the backdrop of the fact that the

previous trial judge in the earlier matrimonial litigation had fixed the

interim maintenance @ `13,000/- per month apart from litigation

expenses of `11,000/-. In any case, these are two interim orders which

were passed by the court during the interregnum when the parties were

permitted to adduce evidence and get the order varied subsequent thereto.

From the year 2011 when the order was passed, we are in the year 2013.

The petitioner ought to have produced sufficient evidence before the trial

court to have the order varied. I do not find any reason to interfere with

the impugned order passed by the learned trial court granting interim

maintenance to the respondent @ `12,500/- per month apart from

litigation expenses @ `11,000/-.

9. The petition is without any merits and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 30, 2013 'AA'