Sevantilal Tripathi v. Sil. L.I Iasvel Sujstri

1. j his is a wife's appeal under Sc\,:tion 19 oj' the l;amily CU'.d'l" Act. 1984 seeking to enhance mainkn;JnC'.~ U(!I1CieJ1/( iite awarded b'.' L.- I • the Trial Court by the.impugned order.:bted 2/./)7 }()U for ttc appellant. and hcr minor daL;ghtcr. ').c',:j'IC "ll)j)(',I'i'lJ':; 'In (1 "'-'S'l()I'ICi {,,-: L r ·\....,L.. t { I I. ""-"J.' •.;t.t_ Indore and started livl!1g together aJD!lg \\;1!1 the rcspc'!lcknt's p'-Tcnts. '}v ilhil! q months or the rnarriagc. the rc'~pundcllL WJt Ct.ii)b a') v'icc-- '!'!!.~~"'!:~-.~~~:!f~-~fi!'~~"-'! ~¥.~.~~':~~:!!"!T~"~~~"~,!·!!~_!'·!15·~·~'!·~!" ~! ~~~'!~!! ~:!:::'~.~.~~..~ ~..~ -': ~ ~ !~!."~~ ~-~:'!~.I!~~'?~ ~ ~~_~ '!.~~~ ~,;': I,Fe 'J 3 I i 3.' 2013:DHC:7106-DB I>resident of Deutsche l3ank and the couple moved to JaipuL where the appellant delivered a bahy girl named "Saisha" on 21.09.2010. On 2S. 10.2010, the appellant with her minor daughter and hrother came to Delhi to meet her parents. Thc respondent met her only twice during her stay in Delhi, and refused to visit her parent's rcsidence the second time, meeting her at a hotel instead in December 2010. Therealtcr, several attempts to meet the re~·;pondell1t were made hy the appellant hut ·were refusedlignored hy the respondent. She took up a.ioh in Mis. Sapient at Gurgaon to supporl hersel I' and her daughter. • On 25.08.20 iI, the respondent told her or a divorcc petition he had filed against her in the "'amily Court at.Iaipur. or which the first hearing was on the same date. The appellant made attempts to communicate with the respondent but was unsuccessful. She tiled a complaint at Police Station, Shyam Nagar on 27.08.201 I but \vas /c)recd to return to Delhi since no acti!)!1 was taken, and is staying here till date. She then tiled a transfer pel iti{)n hei()lT the Supreme Court, resulting in the divorce petit.ion hcing transferred to Fam iIy Court, Iklhi.

3. On 03.0S.20U. the appellant liled a detailed written statement to the petition along with an application under Section 24 of the, [induMarriage Act, 1955 /(Jr grant or maintenance and pendente-lite claiming for monthly maintenance or <2'()(U)oO/- I()r both herself and her minor daughter and ZLOO,OOO/- towards litigation expenses. "1. The Trial Court heard the maintenance application and oral arguments and aJ lowed the application by order dated 27.07.2013, '!!Pi!'!'" II II (F'O 3 / /3 *' ~~--'----~~~""""'-~--"'--""~."",~"'!!"''''''''''---~''''!!-!!!!'!'---''!''=~ eoge _-~ • • granting maintenance of ~'25,OOO/- per month each to the appellant and her daughter. The order specified that the respondent would pay ~25,OOO/- per month to his daughter till she gets married. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court for enhancement of maintenancc.

5. Ihe Trial Court found that the parties belonged to upper middle class families. As per income tax returns for 2012-2013 lilcd before this Court, the take-home salary of the appellant was~49,9g2/- per month. The take-home salary of the respondent. Oil the other hand, is ~2,76A75/- per month, over fIve times that of the appcllant. It was wrongly calculated to be ~'3,g[3],OOO/- per month by the Trial Court.

6. It is argued by the appellant that thc amount awardcd by the Trial Court is, under the circumstances, and having regard to the materials on record. grossly inadequatc Counsel suhrn ittcd that having determined that the respondent \vas earning overn. g lakhs pcr month, the Court should not have awarded only ~5(LO()O/- to the appel lant and the child. 'l'hat amount had no co-relation to the earning and bore no proportion or connection with the respondent' s income. In I"aet. the impugned judgment docs not disclose any reasonmg III that regard.

7. Counsel i()r the respondent argued that the amount awarded by the Trial Court IS fair and reasol1abIe. It \vas ar}2,ued that the L respondent wife IS not only qualiJied but capable or earnmg a handsome salarv. -' l-'urthermore, the rcsJlondem IS possessed of 1/,·11 (/-C) 3 1 13 Pap,(J 3 suhstantial means in the form or bank deposit. which yield over ~50,OOO/- per month. Reliance was placed upon the Income Tax Returns which wcre part of the recl)l"d ortile Trial Court.

(d) The amount should aid the aPIJlicant to livc in a similar life sty Ie as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

(c) Non-appl icant's liabilitics, I rany.

(!) Provisions for rood, clothing, shelter. education. medical attendance and treatment etc. orthe applicant: particularly of the child who will need to start going to playschool soon. (g) Paymcnt capacity of the nOll-applicant. (h)Sollle guess work is not ruled out while estimating the incomc or the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources arc not disclosed.

9. It is setticd law that applicants in a maintenance proceeding undcr Section 24 arc entitled to the same standard or living as they ~ _____g~'~~~.~...~...~....~_~.._~ __~_~.~._~.. ~~~.~.. ~.. ?.~~~~AA __ ~'.~~~.~.~~.~~..~,.~~~~~~.I!.ITr/'Cd f fl' /'nge I • would have enjoyed if the dispute had not occurred. Ilis father being well-qualified and comfortably retired fix the last revV years with his wife, the respondent has no other liabilities except to maintain his daughter and \vil'c. His child is nmv 3 years old and as such requires a great deal 0 I' care.;\s the appellant has averred, she vvill need to start going to pre-school soon. The respondent's aflidav:t disclosing lI1come and assets would reveal that according to the income tax returns. his annual salary is ~-46 lakhs; or that Z12 lakh is deducted towards income tax. The appellant is len \vith {34 lakhs. This works out roughly to about <"-2.[7] lakhs per month.;\s against this, the award of a total sum of Z50,OOO/- is inadequate; it bears only a l1'actiol[1] (2()<~/;») to the net monthly income of the appellant.;\s between thc two spouscs, the husband is undeniably better placed financially. J O. in view or the clear capacity oj' the respondent to provide a good standard of living commensurate \vith his salary to his wife and child during the pendency of the proceedings, there is no reason the maintenance amount should not be enhanced. I J. We are or the view that the plea to enhance the maintenance amount is legitimate and accordingly direct the maintenance amount to be increased to ~c50,OOO/- per month each for the appellant and for her daughter (i.e a total amount of ~-1,00.000/-). This would leave the respondent with {J,76A75/- per l11onth, w~1ich ought to be more than adequate 1'01' him to maintain his standard oj' living as yvell. The amount payahle towards litigation e,\DCI~SCS should also be increased, to ~25,OOO in t%. The appeal is thus allowed, partly in the above ~~~~.>iIIi!!!~."!~'!I!'l!~~.~q~~-!§.~:~a~~ \/IIOTJiI13 I',,'~ej tf}~)(H)f) nuzv M HAlrV~ (a~)(HU') J"vrur Vll0l\lIA V~I ·S ~ 'lnqJn1S~pUn

1. P!:l.m.lJP.to p;)u'findUl~ Yp til FLiSOdLU! SUO~1rpUO:l.I:lL!10:1lp:SU.:.1:)1