Jatinder Singh vs Roopleen Kaur and Others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—These two petitions Nos. 2490 and 2806 of 1990 the former by the husband and the latter by the wife, are directed against the same order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, passed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and are, therefore, disposed of through this common order.

The Court has allowed maintenance pendent lite to the wife and two minor daughters of the parties at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month, besides Rs. 2,000 by way of litigation expenses. All this, however, has been made subject to the amount payable by the husband to the wife as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 16th July, l990. Vide this order, the said Court has allowed maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400 per month and Ra. 200 to each one of the minor daughters by way of interim measure during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 125 Criminal Procedure Code.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the material on record, I find that moat of the material relied upon by the Additional District Judge in the impugned order was not before the Judicial Magistrate, who passed the order dated 16th July 1990, and, therefore, the presently impugned order calls for no interference. What has been alleged and supported by the wife on oath by way of affidavit is that her husband Jatinder Singh is running a flourishing business at Ludhiana and is a partner in two well-known concerns, namely, Messrs Precision Tools India Ltd. and Messrs Super Products Industries, Mill Road, Ludhiana, and is having a monthly income of Rs. 10,000 at least. She also maintained that besides owning two cars-Fiat and Maruti and having three telephones and other considerable property in the form of an industrial plot and luxury items, like V.C.R., Colour T.V., large size Refrigerator, Air Conditioner, Cooler, Vacuum cleaner etc., is also paying about Rs. 2,000 per month, by way of house rent. In which no is living in one of the posh localities of the town, i.e. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. To controvert this stand of the wife Smt. Roopleen Kaur, Jatinder Singh fied repeated affidavits, but the Court has declined to accept the veracity of the same. As per his stand, he is a partner in Measrs Precision tools India Lid. only to the extent of 1/3rd share and his total assessable yearly income from that concern in Rs. 3,950. He has not explained anything about his interest in Messrs Super Products Industries, even though the wile has placed on record a photo-copy of the partnership deed dated 1st June, 1984, which discloses his interest in that concern to the extent of 50 per cent. The plea of Jatinder Singh has been rejected by the Additional District Judge with the following observations:-

"As such, it appears very funny that a person who has total income of Rs. 18957 will claim a deduction to the extent of Rs. 15,011 for having invested in the Life Insurance Corporation, National Saving Certificates etc. There is no reason to accept the version of Jatinder Singh that his total yearly income was Rs. 3,950. Had it been so then this whole amount would have gone towards part of the rent of the house paid by Jatinder Singh. A person who owns and maintains cars and other luxurious items, pays rent of the house cannot be expected to do all these with income of Rs. 3,950 per annum. Not only this, Jatindcr Singh admitted that he had booked a contesaa car and a Premier NE 118 car. These cars are not meant for a person having only financial Income of Rs. 3,950. From the documents placed on the record by Jatinder Singh himself and from the affidavits of the parties, I have reasons to conclude that Jatinder Singh might be having a monthly income of Rs. 6,000. Shrimati Roopleen Kaur is admitted to be unemployed and the two minor daughters are living with her. Jatinder Singh has not been able to bring on record, any source of income of Smt. Roopleen Kanr."

I find no good ground to disagree with this conclusion of the lower Court. As has been pointed out earlier, most of the material referred to in this order was not placed before the trial Magistrate, who passed the order on 16th July, 1990, as referred to above. At the same time, I am of the view that even though the wife is clamouring for higher rate of maintenance, yet there are no justifiable grounds to enhance the same.

For the reasons recorded above, these petitions fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs.