Preeti Bansal vs Akash Bansal

Sat Pal, J.

This petition has been directed against the order dated 25th September, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge, has held that since the petitionerwife was earning Rs. 2200/ per month, the said amount was sufficient for her maintenance and as such, no maintenance allowance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be allowed during the pendency of the case. Notice of motion of this petition was issued to the respondent.

Mr. Chadha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the incometax return submitted by the respondent husband, the annual income of the respondent for the year 199596 is Rs. 1,04,312/. He also submitted that in reply to the interrogatories, the respondenthusband admitted that the firm of which he was partner was maintaining two cars. He further submitted that in terms of the law laid down by this court, the wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be declined maintenance simply on the ground that she was earning some amount. He submitted that 1/3rd of the aggregate income of the husband and wife less wife''s income, was permissible to the wife under Section 24 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Usha v. Sudhir Kumar Suneja, 1975 HLR 1 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Harsharan Singh v. Tejinder Kaur, 1975 HLR 252. He also submitted that while granting the maintenance allowance, it should be ensured that the wife should be able to live in a manner commensurate with her social status and the social status of her husband. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Devinder Kaur v. Kanwaljit Singh, 1976 HLR 96.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondenthusband, however, submitted that admittedly the petitionerwife was earning Rs. 2200/ per month and with this amount, she could maintain herself well and as such she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance under section 24 of the Act. He further submitted that no set formula could be laid down for the fixing of the amount of maintenance allowance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. The District Judge, Dehradun and others, JT 1997(7) SC 531 : 1997(4) RRR 65. He submitted that in said case, the total income of the husband was Rs. 20,000/ per month and the wife was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ per month, though the wife was not having any income in that case.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. In the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court as under :

"No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as the she can live in a reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case."

From the above mentioned observations of the apex court, it is clear that while granting maintenance allowance, the Court has to see that the amount of maintenance should be such as the wife can live in a reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. It is not disputed that the husband is having 50% share in the firm which is maintaining two cars Contessa Classic and Ceilo. He is also having monthly income of Rs. 8700/ per month whereas the monthly income of the wife is only Rs. 2200/. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitionerwife is allowed a sum of Rs. 1000/ as the maintenance allowance during the pendency of the case.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana is set aside and the respondenthusband is directed to pay sum of Rs. 1000/ per month maintenance allowance to the petitionerwife from the date of the application.

With this order, the petition stands disposed of.