Delhi High Court: In a case wherein an appeal was filed challenging the impugned order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the HMA’) dated 24-04-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court (South), Saket, New Delhi, whereby appellant was directed to pay Rs. 30,000 per month to respondent towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the petition till its disposal along with litigation expenses of Rs. 51,000. The Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta*, JJ., opined that maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 21,000 per month to respondent, as paid in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the PWVD Act’) from the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court till its disposal would be reasonable and the same shall be paid along with litigation expenses/arrears in terms of impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court.
Background
Appellant married respondent in 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, but in 2020, respondent returned to her parental home owing to differences between the parties. Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the PWVD Act against appellant and his family members in 2021, wherein appellant was directed to pay Rs. 21,000 per month to respondent as maintenance vide order dated 12-12-2022. Appellant also filed a divorce petition against respondent before the Family Court wherein the impugned order was passed under Section 24 of the HMA, directing appellant to pay Rs. 30,000 per month towards maintenance pendente lite to respondent along with litigation expenses.
Appellant contended that he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000 per month as maintenance in the proceedings under PWDV Act, which was enhanced to Rs. 30,000 in the proceedings under Section 24 of HMA without any change in circumstances. Appellant submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant was the only earning member in the family and had to support his sisters, brothers, and aged parents and further that appellant had also borrowed a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs from his employer for marriage of his younger brother and was paying instalments towards the same.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that as per the copy of appellant’s pay slip for May 2022, out of gross salary of Rs. 1,04,276, deduction of Rs. 25,000 was reflected against ‘court recovery’, Rs. 17,425 against ‘society recovery’ apart from other statutory deductions. Thus, the net salary received by appellant after deductions and recoveries was Rs. 56,492. The Court observed that the reasons for granting higher maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 30,000 per month when compared to maintenance of Rs. 21,000 per month awarded in the proceedings under PWDV Act initiated by respondent, were not mentioned in the impugned order and even, no substantial change of circumstances after passing of order in proceedings under PWDV Act was brought to its notice.
The Court opined that there was nothing to infer that deductions as per the pay slip had been initiated by appellant only after the commencement of litigation between the parties to escape maintenance. The Court further opined that “while considering the quantum of maintenance, the liabilities of appellant along with his duties towards other family members could not be ignored”. The Court observed that though respondent claimed to have no independent source of income but had reasonable educational background being a graduate from Delhi University and she appeared to have voluntarily undertaken social work as claimed despite there being no impediment for undertaking a meaningful employment.
The Court further opined that “the spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chose to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses. The equivalence did not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, who was unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income. The provision was gender neutral and Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA provided for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA”.
The Court thus opined that maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 21,000 per month to respondent, as paid in the proceedings under PWDV Act from the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court till its disposal would be reasonable and the same shall be paid along with litigation expenses/arrears in terms of impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court. The Court, after considering the inflation and rising prices, directed that maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of divorce proceedings should be enhanced with Rs. 1,500 per month for each succeeding year, till disposal of the petition.
[Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7318, decided on 21-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Aditya Gaur, Krishan Bhardwaj, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sachin Bansal, Arti Sharma, Sakshi Mahajan, Gaurav Chauhan, Advocates
