Kamal Tandon alias Kamlesh v. Naveen Tandon

1. This is an appeal under section 19 ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by appellant/wife against the order dated October 4, 2012 passed by the learned Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi whereby her application for enhancement of maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ^the Act'), has been dismissed.

2. Respondent/husband has filed adivorce petition under section 13(l)(ia) ofthe Act against the appellant/wife seeking dissolution oftheir marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant/wife is contesting the said petition and the matter is pending disposal before the learned Family Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, appellant/wife had moved an application under section 24 of the FAO 16/2013 ' PagelolS 2013:DHC:8007-DB A- Act seeking maintenance pendente lite for herself The said application was disposed of vide order dated August 27, 2007 whereby the m);ermi maintenance amount of ? 1500/- per month was granted to her. She challenged the said order by filing Matrimonial Appeal No.71/2007 which was disposed of by this court on December 10, 2007 wherein the maintenance pendente lite was enhanced from ? 1500/- to ? 3000/- per month. Thereafter appellant/wife moved an application dated May 8, 2009 before the Family Court for enhancement ofmaintenance pendente lite as according to her with the implementation of 6'^ Pay Commission, the salary ofthe respondent/husband had increased. The learned Family Court Judge vide order dated October 26, 2009 enhanced the maintenance from ? 3000/per month to ? 4000/- per month. Again appellant/wife moved an application before the Family court for modification of aforesaid order by contending that aforesaid amount was not sufficient for fiilfilling her basic needs. She had further alleged that respondent/husband has been promoted from LDC to UDC and his salar}' has been enhanced. She has further alleged that when her maintenance was fixed @? 4000/- per month, respondent/husband's gross salar)' was ? 14442/- and now his gross salary is ? 22881/- per month, as such, maintenance be enhanced due to change in circumstances.

3. Respondent/husband took the stand that appellant/wife is not entitled for further enhancement and maintenance amount of ? 4000/- is sufficient for her.

4. The learned Judge, Family court has dismissed the said application by holding that appellant/wife has failed to show any increase in the salary of respondent/husband and that respondent has got liability to maintain his FAO 16/2013, Page 2of[5] c mother also, as such, maintenance of? 4000/- is sufficient for her.

5. After issuance of notice of the present appeal, respondent' has appeared in person and has submitted that he does not want to engage a counsel and wants to argue himself

6. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

7. Itis admitted position that earlier the maintenance pendente lite ofthe appellant/wife was fixed @? 1500/- per month by the learned Family Court vide order dated August 27, 2007. On challenge to the same before this court and considering the net salary of respondent/husband at that time which was ? 8279/- per month, vide order dated December 10, 2007, this court had enhanced the maintenance pendente lite of the appellant/wife from ? 1500/- to ? 3000/- per month. It! is also admitted position that thereafter, appellant/wife had moved another application for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite on the ground that due to implementation ot 6"^ Pay Commission, the salary of respondent/husband has increased and the maintenance pendente lite was enhanced to ? 4000/- per month by the Ld.Judge, Family Court vide order dated October 26, 2009.

8. When maintenance pendent lite was fixed @ ^ 4000/- per month, the salary of respondent/husband was ? 14422/- per month. Thereafter, respondent/husband was promoted from LDC to UDC and there is ftirther increase in his salary.

9. As per salaiy slip of respondent/husband on record dated June 2012, his gross earnings are ^"22,881/- per month. There are various deductions in the salary slip viz. ?865/- PF, ?30 GIS, ?'125/- CGHS, ?3898/- RB Coop Society and ?1000/-PF Advance. Thenet salary as payable is?16,963/-. FAO 16/2013 Page 3 of[5] c

10. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the respondent/husband is not entitled to claim the deductions of ^3898/towards RB Co-operative Society and ^1000/- towards PF advance from his earnings as these deductions are not statutory deductions as such his net salary be taken as ?21,865/-. It is further contended that his mother is also getting pension and respondent/husband has no liability towards his mother and the learned trial court has wrongly observed that he has the liability towards his mother.

11. The respondent has admitted that his mother is getting pension. In the earlier matrimonial appeal dated February 10, 2007 ithas been observed by this court that his mother is getting a monthly pension of?8,000/- per month which was not denied by the respondent there. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent/husband 'has the liability to maintain his mother.

12. As regards deduction of?3898/- towards Railway Board Co-operative Society and ^'l^OOO/- towards PF advance, respondent has submitted that he had to pay the arrears ofmaintenance for the wife and in that connection he had taken loan from his office. It has been observed bythe learned Judge of the Family Court that the respondent had shown aforesaid deductions even at the time when the maintenance order was not passed in favour of the appellant/wife. Further, these are also not statutory/compulsory deductions. In these circumstances, the respondent cannot claim the benefit of these deductions and the net salary of the husband can betaken at?21,861/- per month.

13. Respondent has further submitted that he is living in a rented accommodation and is paying rent of^"4,500/- per month. Copies ofthe rent FAO 16/2013 Page 4of[5] receipts are also on record from the month of December, 2011. Respondent/husband is also served at the address of the rented accommodation. Nothing has been placed on record by the appellant/wife to substantiate thathe isnotliving in rented accommodation.

14. Considering the totality ofthe facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated October 4, 2012 is set aside and the maintenance pendente lite of the respondent/wife is enhanced from ? 4000/- to ? 6000/-per month w.e.f January 6, 2012 i.e. the date when she had moved an application before the learned Family Court for enhancement/modification ofthe maintenance. The appeal stands disposed ofaccordingly. There is no order as to costs.

FEBRUARY 08, 2013 ssb FAO 16/2013 VEENA BIRBAL, J. i; PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. Page 5 of[5]