|
" |
Roshni B, in her initial thread, raised a question "whether the wife's maintenance not supposed to be in accordance with the husband's monthly earnings?"
This question was clarified by the hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Radhika Narang case, the entire judgment is attached herewith, which also highlights, how even the rich husband and in-laws lie before the court from their teeth, file the income-tax returns-which do not reflect the real income, in maintenance cases to deprive the wife. The salient features of the judgment is copy-pasted here for those readers who do not want to take pains to go to attached file.
It is very important to note that Section 24 and 25 are not gender biased provisions. Either it is husband or wife, who is not in a position to maintain himself/herself can claim maintenance & litigation expenses from the opposite spouse, who is in a position to afford it. Why men do not claim it is the reason that in most cases men only do jobs and women are put in houses as housemakers. There is no bar for unemployed, impoverished man to claim maintenance from rich, affluent or employed wife.
"26. Thus, after considering the above position of law, it is evident that
the following principles emerge from the above judgments:- a. Maintenance depends upon the summation of
all the facts of the situation [as laid down in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar vs. Raj Kumari AIR 1971 SC
234].
b. For granting maintenance, the scale and mode of living, the age, habits, wants and class of the life of the
parties has to be regarded [as laid
down in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar vs. Raj Kumari (supra)]. c. Maintenance being such that the wife could live
in a reasonable comfort; considering her status and mode of life which she was used to while
living with her husband [as laid down in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge,
Dehradun and Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 7 ] d. During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, which may take a
considerable time to attain finality, the wife cannot be forced to face starvation till she is subsequently granted
maintenance from the date of the
filing of the suit [as laid down in Neelam Malhotra vs. Rajinder Malhotra and
Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 234 ].
e. Maintenance must necessarily encompass a provision for residence. Maintnenace is given so that the lady
can live in the manner, more or less, to
which she was accustomed. [as laid down in Komalam Amma Vs. Kumara Pillai
Raghavan Pillai and Ors. SLP (C) No. 3670/2005 decided on 14th November, 2008]
f. Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady
can live in the manner, more or less, to
which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include
provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic
need of a roof over the head. [as laid down in Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi (1995) 6
SCC 88]
g. Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and
raiment. [as laid down in Maharani
Radhika Narang And Ors vs Karun Raj Narang And Anr on 16 January, 2009
Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178624/ 20
Kesarkunverba v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1960 SC 1343]
27. The purpose of providing maintenance, in our view, is thus meant to secure to a wife/spouse claiming
maintenance, as far as possible, the status and
facilities enjoyed by her prior to her separation from her husband when her
maintenance claim is finally determined. The determination of maintenance not
being governed by any rigid or inflexible rule gives wide power and discretion
to the Court to do justice.
28. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the conduct of the Respondent No.1, in concealing the true facts from the
court, we are of the view that award of only Rs.40, 000/- per month by the
learned Single Judge was wholly inadequate after taking into account the social
and financial status of the Respondent No.1 and his family, because the fact
that he was the only son whose share in the various family properties was not
denied. A query to the father of the Respondent No. 1 i.e. erstwhile Respondent No.2 s counsel in FAO(OS)
No. 420/2007 failed to evoke a response as
to the extent of the share of the Appellant in the joint family property.
29. Thus, in light of the above principles of law and the factual matrix of
this appeal we hold that the Appellant would be entitled to the following
interim maintenance in addition/modification of the maintenance granted by the
learned Single Judge:
a. In substitution of the sum of Rs.40, 000/- per month awarded by the learned Single Judge, to the Appellant
in respect of a claim of
Rs.1.75 lakhs per month made by her, she would be entitled to interim maintenance at Rs.1.25 lakhs per
month from the date of the application and all
arrears as per this order are required to be paid on or before 31st March, 2009.
b. We direct the Respondent to provide for the use of the Appellant, a new car of Honda City make and
provide the same facilities of
petrol and driver provided along with the car which were provided by the company
Radhika Narang And Ors vs Karun Raj Narang And Anr on 16 January, 2009
Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178624/ 21
M/s Eastern Medikit Ltd. as a director to the appellant. c. We also affirm and reiterate the directions of the
learned Single Judge that the Respondent is to provide to the Appellant a house minimum
of two bed rooms-cum-drawing cum dining with an extra room in any of the
colonies in South Delhi, the distance of which would not be more than 5 to 7 kms
from the school of the children. In our view, the offer of a DDA Flat by the
Respondent to the Appellant does not in any way comply with the directions of
the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, direct that the order of the learned
Single Judge qua the house, which we affirm, shall be complied within 60 days
from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. d. The rest of the directions of the learned Single Judge
such as the reimbursement of medical expenses etc. shall be followed as provided for
by the learned Single Judge.
30. There is no doubt that the courts have to be cautious and ascertain the
true facts and circumstances of a given case in granting maintenance in case of
matrimonial dispute. However, in cases where the income of the husband is
concealed and it is difficult to ascertain the correct current position, the
court may fix the amount of maintenance based on factors which were in existence
before the souring of the relation as we have done in the present case.
31. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with costs
of Rs.30, 000/- payable on or before 30th January, 2009. MUKUL MUDGAL
(Judge)
MANMOHAN
(Judge)
January 16, 2009
s/sk/dr/rkb
Radhika Narang And Ors vs Karun Raj Narang And Anr on 16 January, 2009
Indian Kanoon - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178624/ 22 |
" |
)
