Vandana Kumari Singh vs Deepak Kumar

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 13-02-2019. Vide the said order, the learned Family Court Singrauli had dismissed the application moved by the petitioner herein under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage ACt for maintenance pendente lite.

The respondent, who is purportedly, the Branch Manager of Corporation Bank in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh had filed a petition for divorce on 09-08-2016.

The petitioner had moved a transfer petition of the divorce case before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of C.P.C and the Supreme Court transferred the case from Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh to Singrauli ( Madhya Pradesh), where the petitioner resides.

The learned trial court had dismissed the application for maintenance pendente lite by placing reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000 (3) MPLJ 100. By applying the said judgment on the facts of the present case, the learned trial court held that as the petitioner is a M.com, she is capable of working and earning and that the provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is to be allowed in cases of extreme hardship. The learned trial Court has not mentioned or clarified, how extreme hardship has to be decided in the present case. In Mamta Jaiswal's case, the petitioner Mamta Jaiswal was highly qualified lady with degrees of M.Sc., M.C. and M.Ed. and it was also held in that case, that till the year 1994, Mamta Jaiswal was working at the Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It was in such a backdrop of facts, that this court had arrived at a finding that a person, who was already working with so many degrees, could not have remained unemployed for a long and that the petitioner in that case, could not be rewarded with a bounty of maintenance for deliberately avoiding to work and earn a living.

The learned trial court prima facie appears to have erred in arriving at this conclusion based upon the facts of Mamta Jaiswal's case. It ought to have appreciated that the petitioner herein, is only a M.Com and in today's time, even people with professional degrees in Engineering are finding it difficult to find a job. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent in this case was unable to show that the petitioner was capable of getting work and was deliberately avoiding in taking up employment. Prima facie also, this court is of the opinion that the judgments cannot be applied across the Board in all cases of similar nature. It must be seen at the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of each case.

Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the additional documents filed by the petitioner which reveal that during the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent herein has contracted a second marriage, the photographs of the said marriage are also annexed herewith. Pursuant thereto, an FIR has been registered against the respondent for offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Though, this a miscellaneous petition, in view of the applications which has been filed by the petitioner for taking additional documents on record vide IA No. 7871/19, which for the reasons stated in the application, is allowed and the documents are taken on record, it would be in the interest of justice to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent to admit or deny the said documents filed therewith.

Under the circumstances, four weeks' time is given to the respondent to file his reply to the additional documents. In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, the respondent shall forthwith start paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner as interim maintenance during the pendency of this petition.

List this case on 14-10-2019 for the reply of the respondent and final disposal at motion hearing stage.