HC: Husband PM income 32000, wife PM Salary 16000, HC awarded 10000 PM to wife, son with husband, daughter with wife
Smt. Sanyogita Pundir vs Parth Singh Pundir on 14 July, 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No.39 of 2011
Parth Singh Pundir
S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Pundir
R/o 196, Indira Nagar Colony,
P.S. Vasant Vihar, Dehradun
District Dehradun
…….. Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sanyogita Pundir
W/o Shri Parth Singh Pundir
R/o 196, Indira Nagar Colony,
P.S. Vasant Vihar, Dehradun
District Dehradun
……….Defendant/Respondent
Shri Pawant Mishra, Advocate, present for the plaintiff/appellant Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the defendant/respondent Alongwith
AO No. 248 of 2011
Smt. Sanyogita Pundir
W/o Shri Parth Singh Pundir
R/o 196, Indira Nagar Colony,
P.S. Vasant Vihar, Dehradun
District Dehradun
……..Appellant
Versus
2
Parth Singh Pundir
S/o Shri Laxmi Chand Pundir
R/o 196, Indira Nagar Colony,
P.S. Vasant Vihar, Dehradun
District Dehradun
……….Respondent
Smt. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the appellant Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Oral: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant,J. Both these appeals, preferred under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against the same order dated 30.05.2011, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, whereby said court has directed husband (Parth Singh Pundir) to pay pocket money/maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month to his wife (Sanyogita) in addition to ` 8,000/ lump sum towards litigation expenses under section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Registry has wrongly registered one appeal as AO and another appeal as FA. Both should have been numbered as appeal from order).
3
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the papers on record.
3. Brief facts, of the case, are that Parth Singh Pundir got married to Sanyogita on 29.01.2001, following Hindu rites in Dehradun. Two children- a son and a daughter born out of the wed-lock. It appears that in 2008, relations between the parties to matrimony started souring. Parth Singh Pundir (husband) filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, which was numbered as suit no. 369 of 2010. In said petition Sanyogita Pundir (Wife) moved an application 17A seeking maintenance under section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court, after hearing the parties passed the impugned order aggrieved by which both the parties have filed separate appeals. Wife has sought enhancement in the amount of maintenance, whereas the husband has sought setting aside of the order.
4. At this stage we are not required to examine the allegation made by the petitioner (husband) against his wife on the basis of which 4
decree of divorce is sought, as said matter is still subjudice before the trial court. We are concerned with the economic status of the parties, and the fact whether the wife is unable to maintain herself, and whether the husband has means to maintain her. From the papers on record, it is admitted fact that the husband is a Income Tax payee. It has also come on the record that from the copy of Income Tax return filed by him before the trial court his annual income for the assessment year 2009-10 was ` 3,86,070/-. For the same year wife also appears to have submitted Income Tax return showing her monthly income ` 14,000/- (annual income ` 1,68,000-/). It is alleged in the application by the wife that her husband is a businessman who has got agency of Airtel, Haldiram, Britania, Cadbury , Lakme and Hindustan Liver. It is also pleaded by her that he also runs a 15 rooms hostel named Laxmi Institute. In reply to this, the husband has pleaded before the trial court that the wife is earning ` 16,000/- per month, and needs no help from him.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and arguments 5
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that direction to pay the maintenance at the rate of ` 10,000-/ per month to be paid by the husband to his wife would meet the ends of justice. The wife is entitled to the amount of maintenance as per the economic status of the parties. Learned counsel for the husband submitted before this Court that he is incurring expenses on the studies of his son who is in boarding school of Mussoorie. As to the daughter though he says that he maintaining her also but learned counsel for the wife pleaded before us that during the pendency of the suit, now the wife has been ousted with the daughter from the house of her husband.
6. For the reasons as discussed above, we dispose of both these appeals up-holding the amount of litigation expenses directed to be paid by the trial court, but we hereby enhance, and direct the husband (Parth Singh Pundir) to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 10,000/-per month to his wife (Sanyogita) under section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, till the disposal of the divorce petition. Accordingly, First Appeal (FA)no. 39 of 6
2011, stands dismissed, and Appeal from Order (AO) no. 248 of 2011, stands partly allowed to the extent that the husband shall pay maintenance under section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, at the rate of ` 10,000/- (instead of ` 5,000/-) to his wife. The husband is allowed to pay the arrears of the maintenance to his wife or deposit in her favour before the trial court within a period of one month from today, and thereafter by tenth of every next month till the disposal of the divorce petition. Amount paid under interim order dated 09.06.2011, by this Court shall be adjusted from the arrears required to be paid by the husband. (Stay application no. 6768 of 2011, miscellaneous application no. 6969 of 2011 and stay application no. 5408 of 2011, also stand disposed of). (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 14.07.2011
