Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., in the present application directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 towards alimony pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Petitioner-wife has impugned the order passed by the Family Court, Judge wherein her application was rejected in which she sought interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a divorce proceeding filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(i–a) of that Act.

Petitioner submitted that she was unable to maintain herself since the time she and her husband separated. She was even unable to work due to the psychological pressure and harassment meted out to her by the respondent.

As against this, the respondent is a Medical Officer earning around Rs 60,000 to Rs 65,000 salary. No-one is dependent on him and therefore, she claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000 per month and also claimed Rs 200 for rickshaw fare for attending the Court for each date and Rs 25,000 for engaging Advocate.

Analysis and Decision

Bench stated that as far as the right of a wife, who is capable of earning, to claim alimony is concerned, Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha,2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, considered it in clause (c) of Part III under the head of ‘Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance’.

Court in view of the above concluded that even if the petitioner in the matter in hand is a medical practitioner and was earning something for her livelihood, the same cannot be a ground to refuse alimony to her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Quantum of Maintenance

Bench observed that though the petitioner had produced her Income tax Returns, respondent did not reciprocate the gesture. Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903, laid down several guidelines requiring both the parties to make several disclosures in the form of affidavits inter alia touching the income aspect as well. Conspicuously, in that matter, the Supreme Court had directed the husband to produce Income Tax returns before passing the order for granting interim maintenance.

Consequently, without indulging into further discussion, Court held that the failure of the respondent to come with disclosure as to his own income and taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 and resorting to inevitable guesswork, it would be just and proper to award interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month.

Along with the above direction of interim maintenance respondent shall pay all the arrears up to date to her within 12 weeks from the date of this judgment.

In view of the above discussion, the petition was partly allowed. [Arpana Vijay Manore v. Dr Vijay Tukaram Manore, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3925, decided on 09-12-2020]


Advocates who appeared for the matter:

B.R. Warma, Advocate holding for Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate for the petitioner

A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the respondent

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J. disposed of a matter wherein a complaint was lodged against the petitioner accusing of committing rape and cheating.

In the present case, the complainant, a married lady whose divorce proceedings were still underway had advertised in the matrimonial column of a newspaper seeking a response from interested persons in respect of her marriage proposal. The petitioner responded to the same by agreeing to marry the complainant. Based on the assurance, both the parties shared an intimate relationship and indulged in sexual intercourse. However, later, the petitioner showed disinterest in the marriage proposal.

It has been stated by the complainant that the petitioner had taken Rs 2 lakhs from her and also her gold ornaments coming to 35 sovereigns and that she has been cheated and that she had given her consent to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner only on the basis of the assurance that he would marry her and that the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences.

The complainant was filed under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The Counsel representing the petitioner, V. John Mani, submitted that the complainant had suppressed facts from the petitioner by seeking marriage from the petitioner despite being a married woman at that point of time as the divorce proceedings were still underway and thus, it was the petitioner who had been cheated. Further, it was submitted that there was a falsification of facts when the complainant stated that the petitioner had borrowed money and gold ornaments, since, the complainant had extracted amount more than five lakhs from the petitioner.

In addition to the above, it was stated that the arrest and detention of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and ultra vires and that going by the admitted allegations in the FIS, the Police has committed a serious illegality in arresting the petitioner and that the arrest and detention of the petitioner is against the binding decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts in respect of the legal position relating to the lawful arrest of the accused persons in such cases.

The public prosecutor for the state, T.R. Renjith contended that the Police was given 3 days time for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, after his remand and that the petitioner has not co-operated with the investigating officer in respect of the recovery of the gold ornaments alleged to have been taken by the petitioner from the lady and that the petitioner is likely to threaten or intimidate the complainant, if he is let out on bail.

High Court upon perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case expressed its dissatisfaction with the police authorities arresting the petitioner for the period of time in a case wherein the complainant herself had requested for marriage proposals despite not being lawfully declared as divorced from the former marriage.

Adding to the above, Court stated that, “the petitioner has got a specific case that the lady has suppressed the fact that she was twice married and that though she had secured divorce in respect of her first marital relationship, divorce proceedings are still pending in respect of her second marital relationship, etc. The Police is duty-bound to investigate the crucial aspects as to whether the lady is twice married as alleged by the petitioner. If that be so, it is for the Police authorities to take serious note of such aspects which has been suppressed by the lady defacto complainant in her FIS.”

Thus, bail was granted to the petitioner, however with certain conditions of not committing any offence while on bail, not interacting with the complainant or tampering with evidence. [Prasanth Nelson v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2934, decided on 18-09-2019]