1.0 Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan passed in HMP No. 59 of 2007, by which the learned trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month only towards permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned Additional District Judge, Patan dated 14.6.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2011, by which, in appeal preferred by the appellant hereinoriginal plaintiff the learned Appellate Court has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court enhancing the amount of permanent alimony from Rs.10,000/ per month to Rs.12,330/ per month.
2.0 The facts leading to the present Second Appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1. That the appellant herein original plaintiff preferred HMP No. 59 of 2007 against the respondenthusband for getting decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan. In the said application, the applicant prayed for interim alimony under Section 24 of the Act towards herself as well as two minor daughters studying at Ahmedabad. That the learned trial Court awarded in all sum of Rs.10,000/ per month to the original applicant towards interim maintenance. That thereafter, the learned trial Court passed decree of divorce by judgment and order dated 15.9.2011. That in the said application, the appellant herein submitted the application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act for herself as well as two daughters claiming in all Rs. 55,000/ per month. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that the respondent husband is serving as Professor in the College and his salary in the month of 2010 was Rs.88,684/ and therefore, it was requested to award permanent alimony of Rs.55000/ per month for the appellant as well as her two daughters.
2.2. The said application was opposed by respondent submitting that in fact net amount received by the respondent husband after deduction is Rs.36,996/ only and therefore, it was requested to award permanent alimony considering salary/ income of the respondent husband at Rs.36,996/ only. Unfortunately, the learned trial Court accepted the same and considered the income of the respondenthusband at Rs.36,996/ and awarded a sum Rs.10,000/ under Section 25 of the Act towards permanent alimony of the wife as well as two daughters by judgment and order dated 15.9.2011.
2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court awarding the permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/ per month only, the appellant herein original applicant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2011 before the District Court, Patan and the learned Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order has partly allowed the said appeal modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and enhancing amount of permanent alimony from Rs.10,000/ to RS.12,330/ only, the appellant hereinoriginal applicant has preferred present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3.0. Shri H.M. Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in enhancing the amount of permanent alimony to Rs.12330/ per month only. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in considering income of the respondent husband at Rs.36996/ per month only while awarding permanent alimony. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in considering the net salary received by the respondent husband. It is further submitted that as such the respondent husband is serving as Professor in the College and his gross income/ salary is Rs.94,333/, out of which respondent husband is getting Rs.10,000/ deducting towards GPF, which as such is required to be considered to be the savings and the same is required to be considered in his total income while awarding permanent alimony to the appellant. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pratibha Dineshkumar Vania & Anr vs. State of Gujarat & Anr reported in 2007(3) GLR 2581 deduction of GPF etc is to be considered in the income of the husband while awarding maintenance, as the same can be said to be the savings and therefore, the same is required to be considered while awarding maintenance. It is further submitted that considering the salary of the respondent husband as Professor in the College at Rs.94,333/ per month and deducting compulsory deduction towards Professional Tax, Income Tax and Group Insurance the income of the respondent husband was required to be considered at Rs.79000/ per month and considering the same, the learned Appellate Court ought to have enhanced the same to at least Rs.25000/ per month towards permanent alimony to the appellant wife and two minor children.
3.1. Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of decisions the wife and children are entitled to maintenance considering the status of the husband /father and in the same position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband / father.
3.2. Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision of in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 as well as decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sushilaben Mohanlal v. Mali Chunilal Hargovind & Anr reported 1991(1) GLH 342 as well as decision in the the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 as well as decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntla v. Rattan Lal reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 1420 as well as in the decision of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2462 of 2010, in support of his prayer to modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the both the Courts below, more particularly, the learned Appellate Court to enhance the amount of permanent alimony to the appellant at least Rs. Rs.25,000/ per month to the wife and three minor children.
3.4. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow present Second Appeal.
4.0 Present Second Appeal is opposed by Ms. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondenthusband. It is submitted that after the deduction towards GPF, Professional Tax, Group Insurance, Income Tax etc. and at the relevant time net income of the husband was even to be Rs.36.993/ per month and as the respondent husband is required to pay Rs.18000/ per month to the wife and minor children pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application NO. 314 of 2007, passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court in awarding permanent alimony to the appellant wife at Rs.12,330/ per month. By making above submission, it is requested to dismiss the present Second Appeal.
5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and considered and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below.
5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent husband is serving as Professor in C.U. Shah, Science College. It is also not in dispute that even at the relevant time when the learned Civil Judge passed an order under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act awarding permanent alimony to the appellant, gross salary of the respondent husband was Rs. 89000/ per month. However, considering the deductions of Rs.51,688/ the Civil Judge considered the net income of Rs.36996/ while awarding the permanent alimony to the appellant and consequently awarded Rs.10,000/ per month as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the learned Appellate Court has enhanced the same at Rs.12,330/ per month only. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the Courts below have committed any error and / or illegality in considering the net income of the husband (after deducting GPF, Group Insurance, Professional Tax etc) for the purpose of awarding permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act ?
6.0 Identical question came to be considered by this Court while considering the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of Pratibha Dineshkumar Vania & Anr (supra) and it is held that only those deductions which are compulsory i.e. Professional Tax, Income Tax, Group Insurance etc. are to be excluded are to be excluded for the purpose of considering the salary while awarding maintenance and any deduction towards GPF etc. and / or even the loan taken by the husband it is to be included and considered as income for the purpose of awarding maintenance. Otherwise, the husband if he has to pay maintenance to the wife and the children will always see to it that maximum amount is deducted towards GPF and / or he will take the loan for himself and see to it that the said amount is deducted and he will get minimum net salary. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in considering income of the respondent at Rs.36,996// while awarding permanent alimony to the appellant and thereby has materially erred in awarding permanent alimony at Rs.12,330/ per month to the applicant wife and minor children.
6.1. In the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect woman and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39.
6.2. In the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SCW 1601, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and has further observed that the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.
6.3. Subsequently both the aforesaid decisions came to be considered in the case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in AIR 2008 SC 530 and in para 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503).
6.4. In the case of Sushilaben Mohanlal v. Mali Chunilal Hargovind & Anr. reported in 1991(1) GLH 342 the learned Single Judge has observed that word “maintenance” occurring in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses and other expenses related to the normal pursuits of life and while considering the quantum of maintenance these aspects have to be borne in mind. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge in the said decision that while fixing quantum of maintenance value of the rupee is also required to be borne in mind. It is observed by the learned Single Judge that Court cannot be oblivious to the hard fact about the real value of rupee while fixing the quantum of maintenance along with circumstances.
6.5. As observed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntla v. Rattan Lal reported in 1981 Cri.LJ 1420 1420 while considering the application of wife for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would not be enough that wife should be paid minimum amount to just somehow exist under the sun. It is observed that standard of living of parties must also be taken into consideration.
6.6. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.2462 of 2010 and after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in para 5.7 this Court has observed and held as under:
“Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court the following principle emerge what required to be considered while considering the application of the wife and/ or children for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(A)The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.
(B).The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. (C).Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
(D). It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
(E).Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient and that she is unable to maintain herself.
(F).Even if it is found that the wife is earning or having some income to survive somehow, that is not sufficient to rule out of application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it has to be established that from the amount she earned she is able to maintain herself.
(G).While considering the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while awarding the maintenance, what is to be applied is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband and it should be consistent with status of a family. (H).While considering the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the “maintenance” includes food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses and other expenses related to the normal pursuits of life and while considering the quantum of maintenance these aspects have to be borne in mind.
(I).While considering the quantum of maintenance, price rise, value of the rupee is also required to be borne in mind.”
7.0. It is true that the aforesaid decisions are under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however the said principles can be considered while awarding permanent alimony to the wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and considering the salary slip of the respondenthusband, it appears that his gross salary / income is Rs.94,333/ per month out of which Rs.15000/ is towards compulsory deductions i.e. Income Tax, Professional Tax, Group Insurance etc. and rest of the deductions are towards GPF, LIC and therefore, the income of the respondenthusband for the purpose of awarding permanent alimony to the appellant is required to be considered at Rs.80,000/ (Approximately) and considering the fact that the respondent husband is required to pay Rs.18000/ per month to the appellant to the appellant and minor children towards maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the order passed by the learned JMFC, Patan dated 28.3.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.314 of 2007 and considering the four units, it appears to the Court that under Section 25 of the Hindu marriage Act the appellant is entitled to at least Rs.25000/ per month. Under the circumstances, the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in enhancing the amount of permanent alimony to Rs.12,330/ per month only.
8.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,present appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patan dated 15.9.2011 passed in HMP No.59 of 2007 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patan dated 14.6.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2011 are hereby modified and it is held that the appellant wife is entitled to Rs.25000/ per month towards permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which the respondent husband is to pay to the appellant wife as permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The arrears on the basis of present order shall be cleared by the respondent husband from two months from today and continue to pay permanent alimony at Rs.25000/ per month under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the appellant between 1st and 10th day of Every English Calendar Month regularly. Present Second Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with cost which is quantified at Rs.5000/ towards cost of the present litigation, which shall pay to the appellant along with arrears as stated above.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )