Poonam Soin vs Vinod K. Soin

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.—The revision has been filed by the wife, petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 9.1.1990 of the learned A.D.J. Delhi fixing interim alimony u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (For short "the Act") at Rs. 2,500/- per month and directing payment of sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards the litigation expenses pending the suit filed by the husband u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Act for dissolution of marriage.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that having regard to the fact that the respondent is the Managing Director of Companies and as such his monthly income from each Company cannot be less than Rs. 36,000/-, the impugned order fixing the interim maintenance at a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month is not sustainable. He further contended that the amount of the interim alimony should be fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per month and the respondent should be directed to pay Rs. 22,000/-per month towards the litigation expenses. Learned Counsel for the respondent husband strenuously contested the above contentions and stated that on consideration of the material on record, the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is reasonable and there is no justification to increase the said amount.

The petitioner has also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC seeking leave to produce additional evidence before this Court. The additional evidence sought to be produced before this Court consists of photostat copies of some clippings of newspapers and brochures of the respondent''s Companies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham of Bombay and Others, , in support of his contention that the additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC can be accepted by a Revisional Court. In my opinion, the said authority does not help the petitioner. That decision is an authority for the proposition that under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC, the Appellate Court has power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined and this power is limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. It nowhere lays down that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, CPC are applicable to a revision u/s 115, CPC. In this view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioner u/Order 41, Rule 27, CPC is rejected.

Now, coming to the fixation of quantum interim alimony, it has to be borne in mind that the Act has not set any limit to the interim alimony awardable u/s 24. Section 24 speaks of fixing a reasonable amount. While determining the quantum of interim maintenance u/s 24 of the Act, the Court has not only to take into consideration of the income of the petitioner and the respondent provided in the section but also relevant facts and circumstances in the case including the conduct of the parties. The discretion u/s 24 has to be exercised on sound principles of Matrimonial Law and within the ambit of the provision of the section and having regard to the object of the Act. In Neelam Malhotra v. Rajendra Malhotra AIR 1994 Del 234: 11 (1993) DMC 542, it has been held that there can be no precise or settled formulae to assess the quantum of interim alimony and each case depends upon its own facts. What is reasonable amount must differ from case to case. The interim maintenance proceedings cannot be equated with proceedings akin to partition and possession of a share in joint family properties. The amount awardable u/s 24 of the Act should normally be restricted to the actual needs of the petitioner and it should not be on a very parsimonious or misery scale.

In the instant case, the learned Trial Court in its discretion has fixed interim alimony under Sections 24 of the Act at Rs. 2,500/- per month and has also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards the litigation expenses. There is nothing on the record to show that the learned Trial Court has exercised his discretion in a capricious or arbitrary manner. It is well settled that Section 115, CPC applies to matter of jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. Chaube Jagdish Prasad and Another Vs. Ganga Prasad Chaturvedi, . The learned Trial Court has jurisdiction to make the impugned order. It has not acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error of procedure which is material and may have affected the ultimate decision in fixing the interim alimony u/s 24 of the Act. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference u/s 115, CPC.

In these circumstances, the revision must fail and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.5.1996.