AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner in W.P. No. 914 of 2014 and W.P. No. 915 of 2014 is ''he husband, while tire petitioner in W.P. No. 6044 of 2014 and W.P. No. 6045 of 2014 is the wife of the petitioner in W.P. No. 914 of 2014 and W.P. No. 915 of 2014. Since they are arrayed differently in these petitions, for the purpose of convenience and clarity, they are referred to as ''husband'' and ''wife'', wherever the context requires.
The husband has filed the petition in M.C. No. 1484 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In the said proceedings, the wife while filing the objection statement has also raised a counterclaim seeking dissolution of the marriage. In dm pending proceedings, the wife has filed an application in I.A. No. 4 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for travelling expenses rid the cost of litigation be paid to the wife. Yet another application in I.A. No. 5 is filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has granted travelling allowance of Rs. 2,500/- per travel and also granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000 is also ordered. Such order has been made on 9-12-2013. The husband is before this Court assailing the said order by contending that the expenses, litigation expenses and the interim maintenance as granted by the Court below is excessive and the same be reduced. The wife on the other hand is before this Court seeking modification of the very same order dated 9-12-2013 and is seeking that the expenses, litigation expenses and the maintenance as awarded be enhanced.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers including the order dated 9-12-2013, which is the common subject-matter in all these petitions.
The wife while seeking travelling expenses and the maintenance, as also litigation expenses has contended that she is presently residing at Mumbai along with her parents and also pursing her further education and as such has sought for travelling expenses of Rs. 15,000/- per travel seeking to travel by air. Further, the wife while seeking maintenance has contended that the husband is working as Assistant Professor having sufficient income and has also contended that the husband owns properties at Mudigere in Chikamagalur and thus having sufficient income from the said property, appropriate maintenance is required to be paid to the wife.
The husband has however disputed the contentions put forth by the wife. It is contended that he does not own any property. Though at the point when the consideration of the application for grant of maintenance was made he was employed, it is the case on behalf of the husband that subsequently he has been relieved from the job on 10-8-2015 and as such he is not in a position to pay maintenance as awarded.
In the light of the said contentions, a perusal of the petition papers, more particularly the nature of the consideration made by the Court below would indicate that as on the date of the consideration as made by the Court below, a document was available before it to come to the conclusion that the income of the husband was Rs. 36,000/- p.m. as he was working as Assistant Professor in the Karnataka College of Pharmacy. Taking into consideration the said income, the Court below has ultimately arrived at the conclusion with regard to the payment of maintenance, travelling expenses as also litigation expenses. The husband no doubt contends that the wife has presently secured her Ph.D. degree and is working and therefore the maintenance is not required to be paid and in any event, he is required to maintain his parents. Though such contention is put forth, there is no material brought on record to indicate that the wife is presently employed. Even that be the position, when it is the admitted case of the wife that she was pursuing her higher studies at Mumbai to complete her Ph.D. and when it is not seriously in dispute that she can also acquire a suitable job with her qualification, this aspect is also to be taken into consideration, though that by itself cannot be the basis to deny the maintenance altogether.
Therefore, in the said background, taking into consideration the income that was reckoned by the Court below, the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as ordered and the travelling expenses of Rs. 2,500/- and the litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- would be justified. Though the wife has contended that the husband owns immovable properties at Mudigere in Chikamagalur, except for relying on certain details having posted in the matrimonial website, there is no material that has been brought on record. Therefore, at this juncture, merely contending so would not be justified.
In such circumstance on taking note of the nature of consideration that has been made by the Court below, to take into consideration the income of the husband and thereafter award maintenance as also travelling as well as litigation expenses, I am of the opinion that the order impugned dated 9-12-2013 is a well-considered order which does not call for interference in these petitions. Therefore, all these petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of. The parties are granted the liberty of seeking early disposal of the petition before the Court below and depending on the board, the Court below may fix a time frame for itself and dispose of the petition itself on merits and in accordance with law.