Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 802 of 2021 Appellant :- Devesh Pachauri Respondent :- Smt Sushila Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.9.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Marriage petition no.836 of 2020 which had been filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the application filed by the wife to seek monthly maintenance it was clearly stated that the appellant husband was doing a job in Dory Toll plaza Madrak and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. This apart, he is also running a dairy business and also has landed property wherefrom he is having agricultural income.
Against the demand of the respondent wife for Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance and the expenditures to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, the Family Court has fixed only Rs.5,000/- per month which is to be paid by 7th of each month. In addition to the same, Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum is to be paid towards the cost of the proceedings. It was further clarified that if wife is getting maintenance in any other matter, the interim maintenance granted herein would be adjusted then.
It is an admitted fact of the matter that apart from Rs.5,000/- towards interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court vide order impugned, the respondent wife is not getting maintenance in any other matter.
The wife is living separately since 12.8.2020 in her parental home. It is also admitted that the respondent wife has no independent source of income.
Bald denial with regard to the employment/income of the appellant husband has been made in paragraph-'11' of the affidavit accompanying stay application which reads as under:-
"That the Appellant has made his objection in the aforesaid application on dated 08.09.2021 and denying the allegation made by the respondent and stated that the Appellant has not job in Toll Plaza as alleged by the respondent and he has no any source of Income, so that she did not need any maintenance from the Appellant. A copy of the objection filed by the Appellant dated 08.09.2021 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit."
Learned Family Court has recorded a finding that as per the assertion of the applicant wife, the appellant husband is earning a handsome amount. The application for grant of interim maintenance was, however, contested by the appellant on the premise that he wanted to keep his wife with him but she was not ready to perform her matrimonial obligations and at that time, the husband was unemployed. We, thus, find from the record that the appellant had made a vague statement with regard to his income and employment. The assertion of the wife that the appellant has landed property wherefrom he earns agricultural income had not been denied at all. Further, the contention of the wife that the appellant had a dairy business and was earning from the sale of buffalo milk had also not been denied.
Bald assertions that the appellant was not working at toll plaza and was unemployed are not acceptable. It may not out of place to note that it is the general tendency of the husband to deny his employment or source of income whenever wife comes forward to seek monthly maintenance. The wife being financially dependant upon the husband and he having taken vow to maintain her at the time of marriage is under obligation to pay monthly maintenance to his wife even if she is living separately. The object of interim maintenance is to prevent wife from reaching the stage of destitution and ensure that she can put up her contest in the Court. Fair chance and level playing field is provided to wife by granting interim maintenance during pendency of the Court proceedings.
Moreover, the question as to whether the wife had deserted the husband without any reasonable excuse or she has been thrown out of her matrimonial home is subject matter of examination in the divorce suit, which has to be proved by the appellant husband by bringing cogent evidence on record.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Family Court. The appeal is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Harshita