AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court-II, Ranchi, in O.S. Case No.215 of 2023 whereby and whereunder, interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month has been allowed in favour of the Opp. Party [wife].
Learned Family Court allowed the same under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act considering the submissions made on behalf of Opp. Party/ defendant that plaintiff had huge business running in the names of Gopalka Projects, Shri Krishan Finance, Shroat Marketing and few other companies. It was also noted by the learned Principal Judge that the plaintiff was in the business of land investments and has huge properties which are let out on rental basis and had a good financial status in the society.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party /wife is a woman of means and many of the properties are standing in her name which were acquired by the petitioner /husband.
In order to buttress the argument, petitioner/ husband relies upon her deposition made on 17.06.2025 in Original Maintenance Case No.408 of 2023. It has been stated by her in the said case that there were four properties standing in her name which comprised of two plots of land, one house and one shop. In Para-9, she has deposed that she has acquired the same from Stridhan and further in Para-34, she has stated that before the marriage, there was no landed property standing in her name. She has added in Para-36 that one Acre twenty four decimals of land is standing in her name by two registered sale-deeds. She has also admitted in Para-35 that there is a shop in the Commercial Complex at Hariom Tower, Lalpur, Ranchi.
It has also been stated in her testimony that she had two sons, one 22 years and another, 15 years of age and both were presently living with their father. Apart from these assets, she has also referred to other shares and investments made and its value has been stated in Para-32 that the value of the share was Rs.44 Lakhs. In Para-27, she has disclosed about sale of share of Rs.27 Lakhs. These are not only assets, but also have three polices value of Rs.16,95,971/- as stated at Para-31.
Learned counsel for the petitioner- husband by referring to these evidences submits that opp. Party/ wife is woman of means and learned Court below while awarding interim maintenance, her means have not at all been considered.
In contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party/ wife by way of affidavit that his income statement has been disclosed to be of Rs.4,50,000/- per month. It is further argued that the specific averment has been made in the affidavit filed by Opp. Party that the landed properties i.e. shop and house which are said to be in the name of Opp. Party-wife are in fact in possession of the petitioner / husband.
It is further contended that for the Duplex Bungalow, measuring 2880 Square feet, named as Vasundhara Garden at Morabadi, Ranchi, she is paying EMI of Rs.60,000/- per month by taking loan from her father. It is submitted that there is large scale concealment of income and assets by the petitioner.
At the stage of grant of interim maintenance only a prima facie view is to be taken, so as to assess the income of the deceased. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he had a monthly income of Rs 4,50,000/- and there are other materials on record suggesting his foreign tour.
So far the income of the Opposite Party husband from rent of shops etc is concerned no details has been furnished. It has been however asserted on behalf of the opposite party wife that she is paying housing loan of the house purchased in her name with EMI of Rs 60,000/-
On these materials, where the evidence of property standing in the name of the applicant has been brought on record, but there is no evidence to suggest a consistent income of the opposite party. On the other hand, the admitted position is that petitioner has a monthly income of ₹4,50,000.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.