RAJ PAL SINGH vs SMT URMILA DEVI
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30.04.2024
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 146/2024 and CM APPLs. 25108-09/2024
RAJ PAL SINGH ….. Appellant
Through: Mr O.N. Sharma with Mr Baljeet Singh Tokas, Mr Arjun Singh Tokas, Mr Piyush Thakur and Mr Tejasvi Kaushik, Advocates.
versus
SMT URMILA DEVI ….. Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02, South-East, Saket. The Family Court, via the impugned judgment and order, disposed of the application preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, HMA] by the respondent/wife claiming pendente lite maintenance and expenses concerning proceedings.
2. The learned Family Court Judge awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application until such stage the respondent/wife was legally entitled to receive the same.
3. Furthermore, the Family Court has awarded Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/wife towards litigation expenses.
4. More pertinently, the appellant/husband was directed to liquidate the maintenance arrears within three (3) months, albeit, in equal installments.
5. The record discloses that the appellant/husband is employed in the Indian Railways. At a point in time, the appellant/husband drew a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month, which, as of December 2023, stood enhanced to a gross amount of Rs.1,22,896/-. This finding has been returned by the learned Family Court Judge based on the pay slip of the appellant/husband for December 2023.
5.1 Besides this, the pay slip of December 2023 also discloses that the appellant/husband made a provident fund contribution amounting to Rs.5,667/-, apart from allowing for other deductions from his salary.
5.2 Significantly, the Family Court Judge has recorded that the appellant/husband made a voluntary contribution of Rs.25,000/- towards provident fund.
5.3 In addition thereto, the impugned judgment and order alludes to a deduction of Rs.26,100/- from the appellants/husbands salary against a loan taken by him.
5.4 On the other hand, it is noted that the respondent/wife is illiterate and has been bearing the financial burden of taking care of a girl-child, who was born in 1996, nearly ten (10) years after the couple entered into matrimony.
3.5 It is not in dispute that the daughter of the disputants is unmarried and the respondent/wife is looking after her interest, both financial and otherwise.
4. Counsel for the appellant/husband says that in the first instance, an ex parte decree for divorce was passed, which was later set aside by an application moved by the respondent/wife under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure [in short, CPC].
4.1 It appears that, thereafter, the respondent/wife moved an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA.
5. In sum, the contention advanced before us by the counsel for the appellant/husband is that the arrears payable towards maintenance present a substantial financial burden.
5.1 It is, however, not in dispute that the divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband is pending adjudication.
5.2 We are informed by the counsel for the appellant/husband that the divorce petition is at the stage of evidence.
5.3 Furthermore, counsel for the appellant/husband says that since the appellant has remarried and has a child, he has to look after them as well. Besides this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife has adequate means to survive. In this behalf, it is pointed out that she is earning approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agricultural land owned by the appellant/husband.
6. We may note that insofar as the earning from the agricultural land is concerned, the learned Family Court Judge has returned a finding that no material was placed to prove the said assertion.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.
7.1 The fact that the respondent/wife is an illiterate person, who has taken over the responsibility, both financial and otherwise, of securing the interest of the daughter, cannot be ignored.
7.2 While granting maintenance, the Court has to look, inter alia, at the financial status of the disputants and thereafter assess what would be a fair and reasonable amount that would enable the spouse to continue to live with dignity.
8. Given the fact that the appellant/husband is a government employee and therefore, has a certain and secure source of income, the amount awarded by the Family Court as interim maintenance does not appear to be unreasonable.
9. The other aspect that the appellant/husband raises before us concerns the immediate burden of paying arrears. In our view, this can be resolved if the appellant/husband were to move an appropriate application before the Family Court Judge, to seek extension of time. We do not doubt that if an application for a grant of extension of time is moved, the Family Court Judge would consider the same and pass an appropriate order(s), after giving due opportunity to the disputants.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
11. Pending applications are, consequently, closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 30, 2024 /tr
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 146/2024 Page 4 of 4