VERDICTUM.

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 R

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.21852 OF 2022 (GM – FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PRATIBHA SINGH

D/O HONORARY FLYING OFFICER
RAMJIT SINGH (RETD.)
W/O VINEET KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT:
FLAT NO. A-203
TULIP BLOCK,
DIVYA JSR LIMELITE APARTMENT
K.G.HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST POST
ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 015.
... PETITIONER

(BY SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. VINEET KUMAR

S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT: KUNWAR SINGH COLONY
BEHIND H-150, HINOO, RANCHI
DORANDA H.O., RANCHI – 834 002.
JHARKHAND
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: AB-1104
 VERDICTUM.IN

SALARPURIA GREENAGE APARTMENT

NO.306, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 26.08.2022 PASSED IN M.C.NO.3726/2019
BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AND WHICH
GRANTS ONLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- PER MONTH
AND ENHANCE IT TO MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.1,50,000/-
(RUPEES ONE LAKHS FIFTY THOUSAND) AND MODIFY THE
LITIGATION EXPENSES FROM RS.50,000/- TO RS.2,00,000/-
(RUPEES TWO LAKHS ONLY).

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 30.01.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking modification of

order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge,

Family Court at Bangalore in M.C.No.3726 of 2019 granting interim

maintenance to the petitioner/wife at `15,000/- and litigation

expenses at `50,000/- for enhancement of the same to `1,50,000/-

per month as interim maintenance and `2,00,000/- as one time

litigation expenses.
 VERDICTUM.IN

2. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent, her husband.

The two get married on 22-04-2016. On several allegations, it

appears that after about six months of marriage the wife leaves the

matrimonial house and begins to reside in her parental house. Long

after the alleged separation, the respondent/husband registers a

petition seeking annulment of marriage in M.C.No.3726 of 2019

under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the

Act’ for short). The petitioner, upto the month of May 2020 claims

that she was working and earning a salary of `35,000/- and due to

onset of Covid-19 she was laid off and had no avocation to maintain

herself. Therefore, she files an application before the concerned

Court invoking Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance

at `1,50,000/- per month and one time litigation expenses at

`2,00,000/-. The concerned Court by its order dated 26-08-2022

passes an order directing payment of interim maintenance at

`15,0000/- and one time litigation expenses at `50,000/-. It is this

order that drives the wife to this Court seeking enhancement of

 VERDICTUM.IN

maintenance on the ground that it is too meager to maintain

herself.

3. Heard Smt.Jayna Kothari, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend

with vehemence that the concerned Court has grossly erred in

granting a meager sum of `15,000/- per month as maintenance

notwithstanding the fact that the husband files his assets and

liability statement which clearly depicts that his monthly salary is

`3,16,027/- apart from the income that derives from all other

assets including fixed deposit that he has. Despite all this, the

concerned Court grants the aforesaid maintenance on the ground

that the wife is earning `1,35,000/- per month. The learned senior

counsel would submit that nowhere in the record it is indicated that

the wife earns `1,35,000/- per month. The petitioner/wife was

earning `35,000/- per month up to May 2020 and is now without

avocation.
 VERDICTUM.IN

5. The learned senior counsel for the respondent/husband

would submit that the wife is qualified, she can maintain herself and

she does not need in any amount of maintenance from the hands of

the husband as the separation had happened in the 2016, and after

the husband initiates proceedings for divorce, the wife files the

application under Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, if the wife could

maintain herself for all the three years without any maintenance it

is clear that the wife did not need maintenance at all. It is only to

harass the respondent/husband the application under Section 24 of

the Act is filed by the wife. He would submit that a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court held in the case of Dr. E.SHANTHI v. Dr.H.K.

VASUDEV1 which was filed by the wife being a Doctor could not

claim interim maintenance as she was qualified and had to work

and earn.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused

the material on record.

1
ILR 2005 KAR 4981
 VERDICTUM.IN

7. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the

petitioner/wife is entitled to enhancement / modification in

maintenance from what is awarded by the concerned Court. The

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not in

dispute and the petitioner leaving the matrimonial house and

residing in the parental house form 27-10-2016 is what is averred

in the petition by the wife. The husband instituted proceedings on

08.07.2019 before the Court in M.C.No.3726 of 2019 seeking

annulment of marriage is a matter of record. Once proceedings

were instituted on 08-07-2019 by the husband, the petitioner/ wife

files her objections to main petition and also files an application

under Section 24 of the Act on 06-03-2020. By then the Apex

Court had rendered its judgment in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA

AND ANOTHER2 in which the Apex Court directed that if the wife is

seeking maintenance at the hands of the husband under any

provision of law i.e., Section 24 of the Act; Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C.; Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act an affidavit and assets and liabilities statement were to

be filed in futural cases and in cases pending adjudication of such

2
(2021)2 SCC 324
 VERDICTUM.IN

applications seeking maintenance. The Apex Court has held as

follows:

“…. …. ….

65. The party claiming maintenance either as a

spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in
relationship, common law marriage, should be required
to file a concise application for interim maintenance
with limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the court
concerned, as a mandatory requirement. On the basis
of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits
of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make
an objective assessment of the approximate amount to
be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.

66. The Delhi High Court in a series of judgments

beginning with Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney
[Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 3841 : ILR (2012) 1 Del 73] and followed in Kusum
Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma [Kusum Sharma v.
Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7627 :
(2014) 214 DLT 493] (“Kusum Sharma 1”) directed that
applications for maintenance under the HMA, HAMA, the DV
Act, and the CrPC be accompanied with an affidavit of assets,
income and expenditure as prescribed. In Kusum Sharma 2
[Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 6793 : (2015) 217 DLT 706] , the Court framed a
format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be
filed by both parties at the threshold of a matrimonial
litigation. This procedure was extended to maintenance
proceedings under the Special Marriage Act and the Divorce
Act, 1869. In Kusum Sharma 3 [Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder
Kumar Sharma, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11796 : (2017) 241
DLT 252] the Delhi High Court modified the format of the
affidavit, and extended it to maintenance proceedings under
the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956. In Kusum Sharma 4 [Kusum
Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
12534 : (2018) 246 DLT 1] the Court took notice that the
 VERDICTUM.IN

filing of affidavits along with pleadings gave an unfair

advantage to the party who files the affidavit subsequently.
In this judgment, it was clarified that the affidavit must be
filed simultaneously by both parties. In Kusum Sharma 5
[Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 931] the Court consolidated the format of the
affidavits in the previous judgments, and directed that the
same be filed in maintenance proceedings.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the judgment in the case of RAJNESH (supra),

the wife files her assets and liability statement on 07.01.2021 and

the husband files his assets and liabilities statement on 18-11-

2021. The concerned Court after hearing the parties passes the

order on 26-08-2022 directing payment of maintenance at

`15,000/- per month and litigation expenses at `50,000/-. The

reasons rendered by the concerned Court could be found from the

following paragraphs:

“11. On the other hand, during the pendency of the

petition, if the wife is receiving sufficient income, then she is
entitled to get the maintenance from the husband. Otherwise,
the respondent contended that the petitioner is the graduate
working in a leading software company and earning
`3,50,000/- per annum as salary. Apart from it, she is having
assets. Of course, the petitioner has contended that the
respondent fails to produce any material to prove his income.
Therefore, her own statement could not be believable. Also,
the respondent could not deny that he is having income of
`3,50,000/-. Also in the Assets and Liabilities statement the
petitioner has produced the salary details of her employment.
 VERDICTUM.IN

It does not containing the salary amount and since May 2020
the petitioner fails to draw any salary. Because of the impact
of Covid-19, the respondent has admitted her employment as
well as salary as contended by her. Therefore, even as
admitted by the respondent, she is drawing the salary of
`1,35,000/- per month. The said salary is totally sufficient to
lead the happy life equal to the status of the petitioner?

12. The petitioner has produced several

materials. among them, the salary particulars of
Account, clearly disclosing that for the month of
August, 2021 he was drawing net salary of `3,16,027/-
Apart from it, he had also produced income tax returns
for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, extract o the saving
Bank account 2019-20 apart from the statement of
accounts. Therefore, if this materials are taken into
consideration, the Court can feel that the petitioner is
definitely having more than the salary amount what is
disclosed by the respondent in her application.

13. On the other hand, according to the petitioner

since she is not having any appointment, the salary of
`1,35,000/- is derived by her itself is sufficient. On the
other hand, the respondent out of that salary amount
she has to meet the conveyance charges and that
contention of the respondent could not be ignored.
Because, she has to spend amount to her day to-day
expenses like, food, clothing, shelter, conveyance etc.
So far the relationship between the petitioner and the
respondent is not severed, mere institution of petition
for divorce is not amounting to severing of the
relationship. Therefore, from the date of the
application, the petitioner/husband has to pay the
maintenance amount to his wife, thereby enable to
lead the matrimonial life equal to the status of her
husband. Therefore, on this background, this court also
feels that definitely it made out prima facie case in her
favour to get interim maintenance at `15,000/- per
month apart from payment of `2,00,000/- towards
litigation expenses. In fact this Court has also confers
the assets and liability statement filed by the counsel
for both parties. Hence, I come to conclusion as stated
 VERDICTUM.IN

10

above, and hence I answer point No.1 partly in the

affirmative.

14. Point No.2: For the reasons discussed above, and

the findings given to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the
following:

ORDER

I.A.No.III filed by the respondent u/S. 24 of

Hindu Marriage Act, is hereby allowed.

The respondent is hereby directed to pay

maintenance of `15,000/- per month continuously from
the date of application until further orders.

It is further directed to the respondent pay the

litigation cost of `50,000/-.”

(Emphasis added)

The reason rendered by the concerned Court for grant of

maintenance at `15,000/- per month is that the wife has admitted

that her salary is `1,35,000/- per month and the husband is

drawing salary of `3,16,027/- per month. Therefore, the salary of

`1,35,000/- drawn by the wife is self-sufficient. It is here the Court

has fallen in error. The affidavit of the petitioner/wife appended to

the application which was filed before the concerned Court clearly

indicates that she was earning `35,000/- per month and not

`1,35,000/- per month as indicated. Figure “1” is added at the

beginning of her salary out of inadvertence which has led to

 VERDICTUM.IN

11

miscarriage of justice as the concerned Court holds that the wife is

earning at `1,35,000/- which is self-sufficient. Nowhere in the

records it is seen that the wife has ever stated that she is earning

`1,35,000/-. The wife has produced documents from the Company

where she was working earlier which laid her off during the period

of Covid-19. What the wife indicates in the affidavit is as follows:

“Monthly income: Since May 2020 I have been out

of work due to non-availability of
technical editing job because of Covid-
19 situation. So, I have not been
receiving any salary from my
employer/company since May 2020. I
state that the letter from my
employer/company for the same has
been attached.”

(Emphasis added)

The wife indicates that since May 2020, she has been out of

work due to non-availability of technical editing job because of

Covid-19 and is not receiving any salary from the employer.

Therefore, there is an error on the face of it committed by the

concerned Court qua the earning of the wife.

8. It is germane to notice the assets and liabilities statements

filed by the husband. In the details of income, the husband

 VERDICTUM.IN

12

indicates that his monthly salary is `3,16,027/- and reads as

follows:

“Monthly income: I state that my monthly income is

`3,16,027/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Sixteen Thousand and Twenty-seven
only).”

(Emphasis added)

He further states that he has fixed deposits which would earn

`2,50,000/- per annum as interest on those deposits. The said

statement reads as follows:

“I state that I receive `2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Fifty Thousand only) per annum from Fixed Deposit
interest”.

(Emphasis added)

He also states that he owes approximately `42,00,000/- to

one Amit Kumar. No details of any transaction of the kind are

putforth in the assets and liabilities statement. A bald statement of

owing to Mr. Amit Kumar is projected stating that he is using his

premises for 9 years and he has not paid any rent and as such the

rent runs to `42,00,000/-. This statement does not and cannot

inspire any confidence of the Court with regard to the liability of the
 VERDICTUM.IN

13

husband, as no document is produced. Therefore, the income of the

husband can, on the face of the records, be taken at `3,16,027/-

per month as salary, inter alia.

9. Now, what is to be noticed is whether the petitioner would

be entitled to any enhancement of maintenance. The Apex Court in

the case of SHAMIMA FAROOQUI v. SHAHIDKHAN3 has held as

follows:

“14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High

Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown immense
sympathy to the husband by reducing the amount after his
retirement. It has come on record that the husband was
getting a monthly salary of Rs 17,654. The High Court,
without indicating any reason, has reduced the monthly
maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In today's world, it is
extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her
status would be in a position to manage within Rs 2000
per month. It can never be forgotten that the inherent
and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is
for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well
as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers
when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
The statute commands that there have to be some
acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain
herself. The principle of sustenance gets more
heightened when the children are with her. Be it
clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never
allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is
constrained to leave the marital home, should not be
allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move
hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law,
she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she

3
(2015) 5 SCC 705
 VERDICTUM.IN

14

would have lived in the house of her husband. And that

is where the status and strata of the husband comes
into play and that is where the legal obligation of the
husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife
is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the
parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate
so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived
in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to
become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no
shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC
can be passed if a person despite having sufficient
means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife.
Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he
does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a
job or his business is not doing well. These are only
bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in
law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a
position to support himself, he is under the legal
obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless
disqualified, is an absolute right.

15. While determining the quantum of maintenance,

this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12,
para 8)

“8. … The court has to consider the status of the

parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the
husband to pay having regard to his reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is
obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary
payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance
fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in
reasonable comfort considering her status and the
mode of life she was used to when she lived with her
husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in
the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the
amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as

a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita
 VERDICTUM.IN

15

Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1

SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

“6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social

justice and is specially enacted to protect women and
children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v.Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70:
1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the
Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social
purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply
of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It
gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of
a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when
they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid
position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 787].”

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of

the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to
plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial
constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage

from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi
in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander
Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174]
wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)

7. … an able-bodied young man has to be

presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so
as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child
and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a
position to earn enough to be able to maintain them
according to the family standard. It is for such able-
bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for
holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his
control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband
does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his
 VERDICTUM.IN

16

income, the presumption will be easily permissible

against him.”
(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that sustenance of a woman does not

and cannot mean mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to

leave the matrimonial house should not be allowed to feel that she

has fallen from the grace and move hither and thither arranging for

sustenance. The Apex Court holds that the quantum of

maintenance should be qua she was leading with her husband. In a

later judgment the Apex Court in the case of REEMA SALKAN v.

SUMER SINGH SALKAN4, has held as follows:

“13. Be that as it may, the High Court took into account

all the relevant aspects and justly rejected the plea of the
respondent about inability to pay maintenance amount to the
appellant on the finding that he was well educated and an able-
bodied person. Therefore, it was not open to the
respondent to extricate from his liability to maintain his
wife. It would be apposite to advert to the relevant portion of
the impugned judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan
case [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine Del paras 80-84)

“80. The respondent during the cross-examination

has admitted that he too is BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA
from Kentucky University, USA; the respondent is a
Canadian citizen working with Sprint Canada and is
earning Canadian $(CAD) 29,306.59 as net annual
salary. However, he has claimed that he has resigned
from Sprint Canada on 23-11-2010 and the same has
been accepted on 27-11-2010 and the respondent since

4
(2019) 12 SCC 303
 VERDICTUM.IN

17

then is unemployed and has got no source of income to

maintain himself and his family.

81. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the

case under Section 125 CrPC, 1973 for grant of
maintenance as she does not know any skill and
specialised work to earn her livelihood i.e. in Para 26 of
maintenance petition against her husband. However, the
respondent husband who is well educated and comes
from extremely respectable family simply denies the
same. The respondent husband in his written statement
does not plead that he is not an able-bodied person nor
he is able to prove sufficient earning or income of the
petitioner.

82. It is an admitted fact emerging on record that

both the parties got married as per Hindu rites and
customs on 24-3-2002 and since then the petitioner was
living with her parents from 10-8-2002 onwards, and the
parents are under no legal obligation to maintain a
married daughter whose husband is living in Canada and
having Canadian citizenship. The plea of the
respondent that he does not have any source of
income and he could not maintain the wife is no
answer as he is mature and an able-bodied person
having good health and physique and he can earn
enough on the basis of him being able-bodied to
meet the expenses of his wife. In this context, the
observation made in Chander Parkash v. Shila
Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC
OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] by this Court is
relevant and reproduced as under : (SCC OnLine
Del para 7).
‘7. … an able-bodied young man has to be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his
wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that
he is not in position to earn enough to be able to
maintain them according to the family standard. It
is for such able-bodied person to show to the
Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable,
for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to
 VERDICTUM.IN

18

discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his

wife and child.’

83. The husband being an able-bodied person is

duty-bound to maintain his wife who is unable to
maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the
marital status and is not under contractual obligation.
The following observation of the Apex Court in Bhuwan
Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena,
(2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4
SCC (Cri) 200 : AIR 2014 SC 2875] , is relevant : (SCC
p. 357, para 2)

‘2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”)
was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the
provision so that some suitable arrangements can
be made by the court and she can sustain herself
and also her children if they are with her. The
concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean
to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson
to be thrown away from grace and roam for her
basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled
in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her husband.
That is where the status and strata come into play,
and that is where the obligations of the husband,
in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a
proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot
take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of
living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn
pledge at the time of marriage and also in
consonance with the statutory law that governs
the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see
that the wife does not become a destitute, a
beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created
whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate
and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally
impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to
render the financial support even if the husband is
required to earn money with physical labour, if he
 VERDICTUM.IN

19

is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless

there is an order from the court that the wife is
not entitled to get maintenance from the husband
on any legally permissible grounds.’

84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not

possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve
him of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of
good physique along with educational qualification.”

(emphasis in original)

14. The view so taken by the High Court is

unassailable. Indeed, the respondent has raised a plea to
question the correctness of the said view, in the reply-affidavit
filed in this appeal, but in our opinion, the finding recorded by
the High Court is unexceptionable.

15. The only question is : whether the quantum of

maintenance amount determined by the High Court is
just and proper. The discussion in respect of this
question can be traced only to para 85 of the impugned
judgment which reads thus : (Reema Salkan
case [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 9380 : (2018) 250 DLT 16] , SCC OnLine
Del)
“85. So far the quantum of maintenance is
concerned, nothing consistent is emerging on
record to show the specific amount which is being
earned by the respondent after 2010, however,
the husband is legally bound to maintain his wife
as per the status of a respectable family to which
he belongs. The husband being able-bodied along
with high qualification BCom, MA (Eco) and MBA
from Kentucky University, USA could earn at least
minimum of Rs 18,332 as per the current
minimum wage in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner
being wife is entitled to Rs 9000 per month from
9-12-2010 onwards till further orders.”

16. The principle invoked by the High Court for

determination of monthly maintenance amount payable
 VERDICTUM.IN

20

to the appellant on the basis of notional minimum

income of the respondent as per the current minimum
wages in Delhi, in our opinion, is untenable. We are of
the considered opinion that regard must be had to the
living standard of the respondent and his family, his
past conduct in successfully protracting the disposal of
the maintenance petition filed in the year 2003, until
2015; coupled with the fact that a specious and
unsubstantiated plea has been taken by him that he is
unemployed from 2010, despite the fact that he is
highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly
income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was
over Rs 1,77,364; and that this Court in Reema
Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan [Reema Salkan v. Sumer
Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 312] has prima facie found
that the cause of justice would be subserved if the
appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs
20,000 per month commencing from 1-11-2014. At this
distance of time, keeping in mind the spiraling inflation
rate and high cost of living index today, to do complete
justice between the parties, we are inclined to direct
that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs 20,000 per
month to the appellant towards the maintenance
amount with effect from January 2010 and at the rate
of Rs 25,000 per month with effect from 1-6-2018 until
further orders. We order accordingly.

17. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the

enhanced maintenance amount, as determined in terms of
this order, to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from
today after duly adjusting the amount already deposited in
Court/paid to the appellant till date. The appellant will be
entitled to forthwith withdraw the maintenance amount
deposited by the respondent in Court, if any. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified in the
aforementioned terms.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Here again, the Apex Court directs that the quantum of

maintenance should be determined on the basis of manifold factors

 VERDICTUM.IN

21

more particularly the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living

index of the day as also the husband being able-bodied man and his

earning being enough and more to take care of the wife and child

as the case would be. On the bedrock of the aforesaid principles

that are laid down by the Apex Court, if the case at hand is

considered qua the assets and liabilities statement of both the

husband and the wife, it would become a case for enhancement of

maintenance; not to the extent that the wife seeks in the petition,

but to a certain extent, as the qualification of the petitioner/wife

cannot be brushed aside. Her plea that she has no avocation would

not mean that she is incapable of getting an avocation and added to

that she has sustained herself all along. Therefore, I deem it

appropriate to grant enhancement of maintenance owing to the

aforesaid facts, assets and liabilities statements of parties qua their

qualification from `15,000/- to `50,000/- per month and one time

litigation expenses at `1,00,000/- from `50,000/- from the date of

filing the application before the concerned Court.

10. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned senior

counsel for the respondent in the case of DR. E.SHANTHI (supra),

 VERDICTUM.IN

22

it would become distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case

at hand without much ado. This Court had indicated that there was

no difficulty for the petitioner therein to work as a Doctor, as she

was, in fact, running a clinic. The facts in that case are not akin to

what is in the case at hand. Even otherwise, much water has flown,

in the concept of maintenance to be paid by the husband since

2005, by judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time,

a few of which have been quoted hereinabove.

11. It may not be inapt to notice that this Court is flooded

with cases where maintenance is ordered, not ordered;

maintenance is ordered which according to the wife is inadequate

and seeks enhancement of maintenance; petitions are filed by the

husband contending that maintenance directed to be paid from the

date of the application which suddenly amounts to a large extent of

money and would seek reduction or deferring of payment of money

to the wife and so on. All these are putforth both by the husband

and the wife for the reason that the concerned Courts have been

liberal in granting time either to file objections; affidavits of assets

and liabilities or adjournments whenever sought. The case at hand

 VERDICTUM.IN

23

is not the only case of the kind, it is an illustration of the kind of

pleas that is putforth before this Court in plethora of cases day in

and day out.

12. Maintenance pendente lite is sought under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 24 reads as follows:

“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of

proceedings.—Where in any proceedings under this Act it
appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the
case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or
his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it
may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the
respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the
proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as,
having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of
the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:
Provided that the application for the payment of the
expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum
during the proceeding shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of
notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Proviso to Section 24 directs that an application filed under

Section 24 seeking maintenance should be disposed as far as

possible within 60 days. The term “as far as possible” is being

interpreted that the Court can pass orders even after six months in

some cases, two years, three years or even four years after filing
 VERDICTUM.IN

24

the application. This delay in considering those applications for

maintenance would defeat the very soul of the provision which is to

give succor to the wife who leaves or made to leave the

matrimonial house on myriad circumstances. Merely, because the

provision directs disposal of the application, as far as possible

within 60 days, it cannot be stretched to an extent by the Courts to

an extent that the wife would not see the amount of maintenance

for ages.

13. It, therefore, becomes necessary for the concerned Court

to adhere to a timeline for disposal of the applications seeking

maintenance at the hands of the husband when sought by the wife,

so that the right to claim maintenance is not rendered illusory. In

the case at hand also, the husband institutes proceedings under

Section 13 of the Act seeking divorce. The wife files an application

on 06-02-2020 under Section 24 of the Act. The husband files his

objections along with the assets and liabilities statement more than

19 months after the application is filed i.e., on 28.11.2021. The

Court decides the application on 26-08-2022 and directs payment

to be made from the date of the application. Therefore, the Court

 VERDICTUM.IN

25

has decided the issue in the case at hand after 30 months of filing

of the application.

14. It thus becomes imperative for this Court to issue

directions to the concerned courts to adhere to a timeline, in all

cases, where applications are filed for maintenance under section

24 of the Act. The concerned Courts shall adhere to the following

timeline:

a. Notice on the application be issued immediately.

Service through E-mail / What’s App, shall also be

valid service in the eye of law.

b. The concerned Court shall grant two months to the

husband to file his objections to the application filed

by the wife seeking interim maintenance under

section 24 of the Act.

c. The wife also should be given the same two months

to file statement of assets and liabilities.

d. On the assets and liabilities so filed by the wife, the

concerned Court shall consider the contentions of

 VERDICTUM.IN

26

the parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders,

within four months thereafter, if not earlier.

e. Therefore, the outer limit to decide any application

seeking interim maintenance is six months from the

date of its filing.

f. To achieve this timeline, the concerned Court should

refrain itself from granting unnecessary

adjournments to both the husband and the wife.

g. If the husband or the wife would not co-operate

with the closure of the proceedings qua the

application for interim maintenance the Court would

be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law.

h. Any delay beyond six months should be only on

reasons recorded in writing in the order that would

be passed.

It is made clear that the concerned Courts shall adhere to the

aforesaid timeline, as the wife should not be made to wait for years

together, to get certain amount of maintenance from the hands of

 VERDICTUM.IN

27

the husband. In many a case, the wife would be driven to penury,

the moment she walks out of the matrimonial house on manifold

reasons. To avoid the wife being driven to such impecuniosities, the

aforesaid timeline should be strictly followed.

15. For aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) A maintenance granted to the petitioner/wife is

enhanced from `15,000/- to `50,000/- and litigation

expenses from `50,000/- to `1,00,000/-.

(iii) The concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the

proceedings in M.C.No.3726 of 2019 within nine months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not,

earlier. It is needless to observe that the parties to the

lis shall cooperate for conclusion of the proceedings as

directed.
 VERDICTUM.IN

28

(iv) The Registry is directed to circulate this order to all the

judicial officers deciding applications of any kind qua

maintenance for its strict compliance.

Sd/-
JUDGE

nvj
CT:MJ