C.R. No.2544 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2544 of 2006 Date of Decision: 09.10.2009 Sonia Gupta .....Petitioner Versus Rajiv Goyal ...Respondent Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The respondent has been served and represented through counsel. Today, there is no representation for the respondent when the matter is called. I have proceeded to hear the case and dispose it of with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The application was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights of the Hindu Marriage Act. The claim by the wife was that she was unemployed and she had to take care of herself and her child. It was her contention that she had been residing with the parents and she had no income of her own. The wife sets out in the petition details of the assets of her husband C.R. No.2544 of 2006 -2- that included the bank deposit to the tune of over Rs.31 lacs. She had also made averments relating to a business that the husband was running which, according to her, was fetching him an income of Rs.40,000/- per month. 3. The husband refuted the contentions raised by the wife and contended that he was himself unemployed and ever since his return from USA, he was mentally upset and he was not earning any amount. It was his contention that the wife on the other hand was a Graduate in Architecture and she was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. It was also his contention that in some proceedings for anticipatory bail for alleged commission of offence of collection of dowry, he had been directed to deposit Rs.7 lacs which he had complied with and the wife had, therefore, enough resources and there was no justification for claiming maintenance. The Court below took note of the fact that a sizable amount has given to the wife through a deposit by the husband and therefore, held that the wife was not entitled to any maintenance. It is this order that is assailed by the wife and is the revision petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amount was deposited as per directions of the Court at the time of granting the anticipatory bail and that it was merely a matter of provisional assessment of what benefit the husband had obtained through her by way of dowry and ought not C.R. No.2544 of 2006 -3- to be factored for considering the claim of maintenance. According to learned counsel, husband's resources were substantial and the court could not have rejected the claim for maintenance which was purely an interim arrangement during the pendency of proceedings. 5. I notice that the wife in her petition for interim maintenance has not disclosed anywhere even about the fact of receipt of Rs.7 lacs that had admittedly been paid to her through a draft drawn in her name. It may not tenable for her to contend that she is wholly without resources. It is an admitted fact that parties are relatively affluent and given to high standards of living. Both of them are graduates in the respective technical fields and they had been used to a fairly opulent living during their stay in USA. It is not possible to secure definite details about the respective resources of parties but the husband shall not be justified in denying to the wife reasonable expenses that she may have to incur for conducting the litigation and for taking care of the child, who is admittedly in the custody of the wife. In my view, the Court ought not to have rejected the application for the only reason that Rs.7 lacs had been paid by the husband to the wife in the year 2005. Four years are gone by and Rs.7 lacs cannot last for ever. I am of the view that the appropriate relief for the wife and the child, who she has to support, shall be Rs.10,000/- per month. The liability shall commence from the C.R. No.2544 of 2006 -4- date of the order of the Court below. 6. The order of the Court below is under the circumstances set aside and the civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 09, 2009 Pankaj*