Deepak Shrivastava vs Smt. Jyoti Shrivastava (MP HC) (W.P. No. 6432/2016)
4. It is vehemently argued that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are not meant for wife like the respondent who is able to maintain herself. She cannot be permitted to use the beneficiary provisions of law which are meant for the wife in need and having no independent source of income. The respondent is the owner of a house and a car and also working as Assistant Professor under the norms of University Grant Commission getting Rs.15,050/- as salary per month, cannot be said to be a wife unable to maintain herself. The learned Family Court cannot be permitted to pass the order mechanically on an application filed by the wife. The Family Court is expected to apply its mind while passing the order of maintenance. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in the case of Manish Kumar V/s. Mrs. Pratibha (CM(M) No.949/2008).
5. On the other hand, Shri Golwalkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – wife, submitted that the petitioner is working as Professor in the Government College drawing the salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- which is much more higher as compared to the salary of the wife/respondent. Looking to the status of the petitioner, the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application by directing him to pay the interim maintenance and the litigation charges. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of Smt. Mamta Jaiswal V/s. Rajesh Jaiswal : 2000(4) MPHT 457; and Raghubir Yadav V/s. Smt. Purnima Kharga (Yadav) : 2001(1) MPLJ 603 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The facts of the case are not in much dispute. The respondent is not disputing about her working as Assistant Professor, income, ownership of a house and a car. In her application filed u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she has pleaded that she has no source of income and she is dependent on her father to fulfil her daily needs and looking to the status of the petitioner, hence she is entitled for the maintenance @ Rs.65,000/- per month. In view of the material available on record, the respondent has stated absolutely incorrect averments in the application. She has conveniently suppressed the fact of her working as Assistant Professor, ownership of a house and a car in order to get the maintenance and harass the petitioner. The Family Court has recorded the finding that she is getting the salary of Rs.15,050/- per month but held that since the petitioner is getting much more higher salary than the respondent, therefore, she is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance.
9. As per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where, in the proceedings under this Act, it appears to the
Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to to the Court to be reasonable. The word “no independent income” is used in Section 24 of the Act. She has to plead and prove that the income which she is receiving is not sufficient for her to support her and meeting out the expenses of the proceedings. In the application filed u/s. 24 of the Act, there is absolutely no averment, rather she has falsely stated that she is having no source of income, whereas, the petitioner has successfully proved that she has sufficient income and property. Provisions of Section 24 has been made in the Act in order to support the wife or the husband, as the case may be, having no independent income to support and to contest the case. The order u/s. 24 of the Act cannot be passed mechanically because the word which is used is “it appears to the Court”, the Court has to record its satisfaction that there is no independent income to support the wife or husband. The learned Family Court has passed the order mechanically by reducing the amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- without there being any pleading and proof in the application u/s. 24 of the Act.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.7.2016 deserves to be and is hereby set aside so far as
payment of maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month is concerned. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the litigation charges and the travelling expenses to the respondent, as directed by the learned Family Court