Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Runu vs Shubhasis on 27 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2660 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RUNU W/O SHRI SHUBHASIS, AGED ABOUT 33
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: 116-B,
VAIBHAV NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ARPIT KUMAR OSWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
SHUBHASIS S/O KSHRI BAIDHNATH DAS, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: 101,
SIDDHI COMPLEX, ANITA NEAR MOTORS, RIS
RASAYANI, DIST. RAIGARH (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENT
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.
2. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner / wife has challenged the order dated 07.03.2024 passed in
HMA No.9/2019 by the IIIrd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore
whereby application preferred by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 has been rejected.
3. The petitioner has preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act before the Family Court for grant of decree of divorce. In those
proceedings, she preferred an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance from the respondent / husband. It was
submitted by her that she is having income of only Rs.35,000/- whereas the
respondent is earning about Rs.2,50,000/- per month by way of salary and is
also having several other incomes hence ought to pay maintenance to her.
4. The Family court has recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner
is herself earning Rs.50,000/- per month and that the income of the respondent
is Rs.1,80,000/- hence petitioner is not entitled for grant of any maintenance.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely
because the petitioner is having income, her application for grant of maintenance
could not have been outrightly rejected. The income of the respondent also
ought to have been taken into consideration which is much more than what has
been contended by him and accordingly appropriate amount of maintenance
ought to have been awarded to her in accordance with life style of respondent
which he was having in the matrimonial house. The income of the respondent
has been illegally assessed by misreading of the documents available on record.
Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in the case
o f Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. Cri.A No.730/2020 (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.9503/2018), Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha
AIR 2015 SC 554, M.P. Singh Bargoti Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. AIR
2015 SC 556, Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai AIR 2008 SC 530 and Kapildeo
Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2008 SC 533.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have perused the record.
7. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it
has been held that the income of the wife cannot operate as a bar for awarding
maintenance to her from her husband. The Court has to determine whether
income of wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with
life style of her husband in the matrimonial house. Mere capacity of the wife to
earn and she in fact earning a meagre amount would not disentitle her to claim
maintenance and the issue has to be decided in accordance with life style of the
parties.
8. Though it has been contended by the petitioner that the respondent is
having much more income than what has been stated by him, but nothing has
been brought on record in substantiation of the said fact. While it is stated that
the respondent is having a flat in his name but there is nothing on record to
show that he is deriving any income therefrom. Likewise, though he is having
mutual funds in his name but the actual income therefrom has not been shown.
The documents on record suggest that the respondent is having an income of
Rs.1,80,000/- and in absence of any cogent material of him earning from other
sources also the same has to be accepted. Thus, the contention of the petitioner
that respondent is having much more income cannot be accepted.
9. The petitioner is herself earning Rs.50,000/- per month and is a
resident of Indore. In my considered opinion, the same is a sufficient quantum
for her to be able to maintain herself. Since the income of the respondent is
around Rs.1,80,000/- per month, there is no necessity for awarding any amount
of maintenance to the petitioner since she is already earning about Rs.50,000/-
per month. It is also noted that though the divorce petition was preferred on
02.01.2019 but the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 was filed by the petitioner only on 16.03.2022 i.e. after a period of three
years which shows that she is capable of and is maintaining herself and does
not require any further maintenance amount from the respondent. In such
circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner do not help him in any manner.
10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this
petition which is accordingly dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
