Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Sahu vs Smt. Priyanka Sahu on 28 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 3031 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
ANKIT SAHU S/O JAWAHAR LAL SAHU, AGED ABOUT 23
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS F-3 90 QUARTERS
NEAR SAI TEMPLE SANJEEVANI NAGAR GARHA DIST.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. PRIYANKA SAHU D/O SHRI NANDKISHORE SAHU
W/O SHRI ANKIT SAHU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, H.NO.
31X 90 QUARTERS NEAR NACHIKETA COLLEGE VIJAY
NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI H.R. NAIDU - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2021
passed by the Family Court in Civil Suit No.1031/2019 (Annexue P/4).
2. By the said order, the application submitted by the defendant - wife
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for pendente lite maintenance and
litigation expenses has been allowed granting maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per
month and litigation @ Rs.10,000 lump-sum in two installments.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has
erred in passing the impugned order because the respondent - wife is engaged
in business and earns money. Counsel has referred to Income Tax Return
acknowledgement (Annexure P/3) for the assessment year 2019-2020 filed by
respondent - wife, wherein her annual income is shown to be Rs.3.19 lakhs.
Counsel further submits that despite there being finding of the wife being earner
of money, the Family Court has erred in granting pendente lite maintenance
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. The petitioner has aso filed an application under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C. (I.A. No.10961/21), wherein it is stated that the respondent -wife has
made false statement on oath that she is not earning and requires
maintenance.Thus, on account of such false statement made before the Court
below as well as before this Court, action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is sought
against the respondent - wife.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - wife submits that the
Court below has not erred in passing the order under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. It is submitted that respondent - wife does not earn any money
and the alleged Income Tax Return was filed by the husband himself, when the
respondent was cohabiting with the husband. Thus, it is prayed that the
impugned order Anneuxre P/4 be confirmed.
6. While entertaining this petition, this Court had passed an interim order
on 20.09.2021, whereby it was directed that the petitioner should pay Rs.2000/-
per month from the date of order of trial Court. The petitioner submits that this
order is being complied with by him.
7. Considered the facts placed on record, the detailed averments made
by the petitioner in application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered
in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. It is a common feature that one party
makes certain averments and other parties deny those averments in every
litigation. The respondent - wife contends that the alleged Income Tax Return
was filed by the husband himself without her authority. This Court need not
give any finding regarding this aspect,because this issue requires evidence
looking to the allegations and counter allegations made by the rival parties. Any
finding about the validity of the Income Tax Return of the wife, her income
status, whether Income Tax Return was filed by the husband without authority
of the wife, etc. are aspects, which requires to be considered after recording of
evidence. It is admitted by learned counsel for rival parties that separate
proceedings for maintenance are already pending. These factors would also
become relevant while determining alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seems to have been
filed more out of heartburn. Thus, this Court refrains from entertaining the said
application and relegates the petitioner to raise all the contentions made in this
application before the Family Court at appropriate stage in divorce proceedings
or maintenance proceedings.
8. So far as the legality of the order Annexure P/4 is concerned, the
Family Court while allowing pendente lite maintenance has already recorded a
prima facie finding in para 12 of the impugned order that both the parties are
earning money and maintain good standard of living. However, looking to the
social status of the parties, monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month has
been awarded to the respondent - wife.
9. It is also seen that the record of the trial Court has been summoned
and is lying before this Court since last more than two years, which has held up
the proceedings before the Family Court.
10. In view of the above circumstances, as the Family Court has already
held that the wife is also earning money, but the quantum of money can not be
arrived at in summary proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is seen that the order has been passed by the Family Court without following
the detailed guidelines in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in 2021 (2)
SCC 324. Thus, it is thought appropriate that the Family Court be directed to
re-decide the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by giving
due advertance to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
(supra). Till that time, the interim measure of Rs.2,000/- per month to the
respondent - wife shall continue, as ordered by this Court on 20.09.2021.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
1 2 . The office is directed to send back the record of Court below
immediately.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
