WRIT PETITION NO.4331 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4676 OF 2017
Order On : 10-11-2017.
In this case the Principal Judge of Family Court, Pune,rejected the claim of petitioner wife for interim maintenance residential accommodation, litigation costs and reimbursement of Medical Expenses.
Hance she has preferred Writ Petition No.4331 of 2017, challenging the order, whereas the Writ Petition No. 4676 of 2017, is preferred by the husband, being aggrieved by the order, directing him to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to petitioner for maintenance of daughter Siddhi, from the date of application till decision of the petition.
The marriage of petitioner and respondent has taken place on 21.03.2011. However, on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, both of them started residing separately since 24.4.2013. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a petition ford ivorce against respondent on the ground of cruelty under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, claiming permanent alimony and other reliefs.
During the pendency of the said petition, she has filed an application at under Sections 36 and 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for interim maintenance for herself and for her daughter. In support of her application, she relied upon various documentary evidence proving sound financial position of the respondent/ husband and her inability to maintain herself and daughter, having no source of income and being dependent upon the financial support provided by her father.
As against it, respondent/husband made every effort to show that he is not having sufficient means to pay maintenance whereas the wife is very well placed, being the Director of a Company and hence an application for interim maintenance cannot be entertained.
In support of his submissions, he relied upon various documents proving the fact that the petitioner is a Director of ERP Corporation Private Ltd., and she is maintaining the car and lavish life style. It was also shown that her profile on various websites reveals that her qualification is MMS in HR, DCE, DBM, DID, however, she has tried to suppress her real income and also the fact that she was the Director of ERP Corporation.
Hence having regard to the fact that the petitioner/wife is a highly qualified person and was working as Director of the company, the Family Court rejected her application for maintenance whereas having regard to the financial position of respondent/husband , the Family Court held that he is also liable to contribute to the maintenance of the child Siddhi and accordingly awarded interim maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the child Siddhi.
Thus these petitions before Hon’ble High Court.
Wife challenged rejection of maintenance and husband challenge the quantum of maintenance towards her daughter on the ground that, as compared to the husband,the petitioner is earning far more income. Her life style and her financial condition is also much better than that of the husband . Moreover, to enroll the daughter in a costly school like, “Kangaroo Kids” was her decision and hence respondent husband should not be saddled with these expenses.
Court observed that this is a peculiar case in which both the husband and wife are highly qualified, well off and having their own independent sources of income.
In matter of maintenance towards daughter Hon’ble Court Held that :
The fact remains that husband herein is well qualified and having regard to life style of both the parties, it can hardly be accepted that he is unable to contribute an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of his daughter Siddhi.
In addition to that, as rightly held by the Family Court, respondent/husband has to pay educational expenses of daughter Siddhi.
Therefore, as regards the writ petition of respondent, this Court does not find any merit therein to entertain the same and hence the same deserves to be dismissed.
Now regarding maintenance towards wife Hon’ble Court Held :
Interim maintenance are not made for equalising their income but to ensure that either spouse does not suffer because of paucity of the income in the course of the proceeding. Where both the husband and wife are earning and having good income, merely because there is some difference in the respective income earned by them, an order of maintenance cannot be justified, especially, if one has regard to the provision of section 36 of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 which provides that only when it appears to the Court that wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, the Court can order the husband to pay her expenses of the proceeding and also interim maintenance.
Here in the case the petitioner wife is
having independent source of income. In such situation she cannot be entitled for interim maintenance. Since both the petitioner and respondent are on equal footing and earn more or less some income, the Family Court, has rightly rejected the wife’s claim for interim maintenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment