IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6427 of 2007 Date of Decision : September 03, 2009 Sandeep Joshi ....Petitioner Versus Geetika .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. This revision, filed by the petitioner-husband, is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the respondent- wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act') was allowed and an amount of Rs.9510/- per month was granted to her as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the said application. The petitioner-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and prayed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. After putting in appearance, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance stating therein that from her marriage with the petitioner, a son, aged about 10 years, and a daughter, C.R. No. 6427 of 2007 -2- aged about 5 years, were born. The petitioner and his family members were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage. Accordingly, they started maltreating her. On 3.11.2006 she was left by the petitioner at her sister's house. Therefore, it was the petitioner, who had deserted her without any reasonable excuse. She was residing with her sister and dependent upon her parents. She had no independent source of income, whereas the petitioner was gainfully employed and doing transport business, having his own vehicles, which he was using for commercial purposes. He also owned a house and a mobile phone. He was living a luxurious life and having an income more than of Rs.50,000/- per month. Therefore, she was also entitled to enjoy the same status and reputation in the society as that of the petitioner. She was also maintaining her two children. Her son was studying in class-IV while her daughter was still in kindergarten. She had, accordingly, prayed for granting her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the various documents, which were brought on record, learned lower Court held that the respondent-wife was entitled to pendente lite maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3510/- per month, which was the minimum rate of a workman in the State of Haryana. As the two minor children, who were school going, were also maintained by her, they were entitled to receive maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3000/- each. Accordingly, the respondent-wife was granted an amount of Rs.9510/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application. C.R. No. 6427 of 2007 -3- When the present revision came up for preliminary hearing, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower Court did not give any finding as to what was the total income of the petitioner. Even otherwise the interim maintenance, as awarded, was on the excessive side. Notice of motion was, accordingly, issued and recovery of 50% of the interim maintenance was ordered to remain stayed. Upon appearance of the respondent, learned counsel representing her submitted that she be granted litigation expenses for defending herself in the present revision. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- to the respondent as litigation expenses. The said litigation expenses were duly paid by the petitioner on November 25, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner then stated that in case the parties are called, there were chances of an amicable settlement between them. The hearing was adjourned for January 28, 2009 and the parties were directed to come present. On the adjourned date, both the parties came present and it was deemed appropriate to send the matter to the Mediation Centre so as to explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties with regard to the matrimonial dispute. However, despite best efforts, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties and the case file was, accordingly, sent back to the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as a Driver with M/s Madhur Carrier Service Private Limited and getting salary of Rs.2800/- per month. He is living in a one room rented accommodation. No finding was, however, given by the C.R. No. 6427 of 2007 -4- learned Court below regarding the monthly income of the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.9510/- per month. It is also submitted that the respondent is employed with M/s Ria Consultancy and getting salary of Rs.5000/- per month. Besides, she is doing tailoring work and earning an additional amount of Rs.5000/- per month. The amount of Rs.10,000/- is sufficient for the respondent to maintain herself and the two children. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is having his own transport business. He owns a vehicle and a mobile phone. His monthly income is more than Rs.50,000/- and, thus, he is living a life of luxury. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,510/- per month as she is required to enjoy the same status and reputation in the society as enjoyed by the petitioner and also for maintaining and bringing up her two minor children. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are summary in nature. While deciding the application of the wife for the grant of interim maintenance, the Court is not required to meticulously examine each and every document brought on the record. The scope of enquiry is limited. There is always an element of some guess work so as to award a particular amount as interim maintenance. In the case in hand, the respondent-wife has alleged that the petitioner-husband is having a transport business and is running his vehicles for commercial purposes. According to her, her husband is C.R. No. 6427 of 2007 -5- having all the luxury items and leading a comfortable life as he is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. The petitioner-husband has denied the said stand taken by the respondent-wife and has claimed that he stands employed with M/s Madhur Carrier Service Private Limited and earning Rs.2800/- per month. As regards her own financial position, the case of the respondent-wife is that she has no source of income and staying with her sister. She has to look to her parents for financial support. However, according to the petitioner-husband, his wife is working with M/s Ria Consultancy and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary. Besides, she is also doing tailoring work and earning an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate his aforementioned claim regarding the respondent-wife earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Only vague allegations have been levelled by him in that regard. Under Section 24 of the Act, the Court is not required to determine the earnings of the husband. What is to be seen is that the wife has no independent income to support herself. However, the interim maintenance should be just and reasonable. Keeping in view all the attending circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order whereby, the respondent-wife was granted an amount of Rs.3510/- per month as interim maintenance. The provisions under Section 24 of the Act cannot be given restricted meaning so as to confine the relief to the wife alone. Even the children of the parties, if staying with their mother, i.e., the wife, are C.R. No. 6427 of 2007 -6- entitled to be granted maintenance in case they are unable to maintain themselves. Since the respondent-wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the petitioner-husband to maintain her and the two minor children who are living with the wife. The right of the wife to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of the two minor children as they are living with their mother. However, this Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded to the two minor children of Rs.3000/- per month for each child, is on the excessive side. Facts and circumstances of the case do not justify granting each of them an amount of more than Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance. Resultantly, the revision is partly allowed by reducing the maintenance allowance for each of the two children from Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.2000/-. However, the respondent-wife shall continue to receive maintenance at the rate of Rs.3510/- per month. In all, the respondent-wife shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs.7510/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act before the learned lower Court. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 03, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1