C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -1- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.R. No.5931 of 2008. Decided on 21st July, 2009. Anurag Verma. .. Petitioner VERSUS Shaveta Verma. .. Respondent PRESENT Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner-husband. Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent-wife. * * * (2) C.R. No.6256 of 2008. Shaveta Verma. .. Petitioner VERSUS Anurag Verma. Respondent * * * C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -2- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner-wife. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the respondent-husband. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2008, passed by additional District Judge, Panchkula, granting interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner-wife Shaveta Verma (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and Rs.5,000/- per month for her minor son, in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in a petition for annulment of marriage filed by respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), both the parties have filed revision petitions. Since both civil revisions arise out of the same impugned order, the Civil Revision No.6256 of 2008, Shaveta Verma Vs. Anurag Verma and Civil Revision No.5931 of 2008, Anurag Verma Vs. Shaveta Verma, have been taken up together. In her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, petitioner Shaveta Verma had averred that the respondent being an IAS Officer, is drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month apart from other perks and facilities. He has also got other sources of income i.e., rental income from various immovable C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -3- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 properties situated in various places at Chandigarh and Patiala, dividends from the shares worth Rs.15 lacs and his total income is Rs.55,000/ per month-. It had been averred in the application that the respondent is owner/benami owner of two plots at Khanna and two flats in IAS Society behind PGI whereas the petitioner is simply a housewife having done B.Sc., in Home Science not gainfully employed anywhere and was unable to maintain herself as well as minor son Aneesh born on 26.07.1997. She claimed that she is currently doing her B.Ed Degree course from Govt. College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh, so that she might be able to stand on her own feet and to support her son. It was claimed that Aneesh Verma is in 5th Class studying in Straw Berry Fields World School, Sector 26, Chandigarh, for which she has to pay tuition fee to the tune of Rs.8250/- for three months in addition to Rs.900/- for transportation charges besides meeting the expenses of cloths and books etc. His expenditure was claimed to be Rs.5500/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. She claimed that she was looking for a suitable accommodation on rent which is going to cost her about Rs.15,000/- per month. It was claimed that the respondent do not have any liability as his parents are having independent income. On the basis of above said averments she claimed that she is entitled to Rs.30,000/- per month to sustain. Litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- were also claimed by her. The respondent-husband in his reply claimed that the petitioner had suppressed her property and income with a view to C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -4- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 mislead the Court. As per her income tax return for the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2006, she earned agricultural income of Rs.1,05,000/- from 6 acres of land in the outskirts of Khanna. For the Financial Year ending 31.03.2008, she would be earning Rs.1,50,000/- from the said land. As per computation sheet with income tax return, she had advanced a sum of about Rs.10,000,00/- to her mother Raj Rani on 31.03.2006. She would be earning an interest of, at least, Rs.1,55,000/- on this amount for the Financial Year ending on 31.03.2008. Her monthly income is more than Rs.25,000/-, whereas carry home salary of the respondent-husband was only Rs.24,000/-. The respondent averred in the reply that he had been paying the tuition fee of the minor son even after separation and with basic pay of Rs.15,500/-, his total income is Rs.32,508/- and after deductions towards GPF and income tax etc., net payable to him is Rs.24,138/-. The respondent claimed that the two plots mentioned in the application are actually owned by his mother as she had purchased the same from her own resources. He admitted that he is a member of Punjab IAS Officers Cooperative House Building Society and applied for a plot. He admitted the annual dividends from shares to Rs.6,000/-. After considering the material made available to the trial Court, the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide order dated 02.05.2008, allowed the application and granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- per month which includes Rs.5,000/- for petitioner and Rs.5,000/- for minor son. Rs.2200/- were granted as C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -5- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 litigation expenses to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, Sh.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, has vehemently urged that the respondent- husband has intentionally concealed his income tax return, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against him in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs.District Judge, Dehradun and others, reported in (1997) 7, Supreme Court Cases, Page 7. He argued that as the respondent-husband has been able to conceal his true income; Even on the basis of modest estimate, the wife should have been granted, at least, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and sufficient amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month for the child for his proper upbringing. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent- husband, Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, pressed for Civil Revision No.5931 of 2008, to contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife is an excessive amount in view of the agricultural income of the wife and she is not entitled to any maintenance. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire facts and circumstances of this case and carefully considered the contentions of counsel for both the parties. Counsel for the petitioner-wife has been awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in total, as maintenance pendente lite which includes, a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and another sum of Rs.5,000/- for the child taking into consideration the status of the parties and the expenditure which is required to be incurred by the C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -6- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 petitioner for looking after the child whereas the respondent-husband has claimed that it is he who is himself bearing the expenses of the education of the child. Great emphasis has been laid down on the judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal's case (supra) to contend that an adverse inference is required to be drawn by the Court about the stated income of the husband as he has made an attempt to conceal his true income by not producing his income tax return. There is no dispute regarding the practice of drawing adverse inference against a person who withholds a document necessary for the adjudication of a particular point of controversy. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal's case, the husband was a retired Lieutenant Colonel and he did not file any certificate of his salary from his employer though the wife had contended that he was owner of two companies which was denied by the husband. No proof of income was available with the Court. In said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the husband had not filed any assessment order but had filed his computation of taxable income for the Assessment Years 1992 to 1997. Having not given true account of his assessment and income adverse inference was drawn, as such, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to the wife as maintenance pendente lite. It was also held that conduct of the parties in the proceedings; the averments made in the application and reply thereto; the tendency of the wife to inflate the income out of proportions and that of husband to suppress the same; and the like, there has to be honesty of purpose in both the parties. In the present case, the salary of the C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -7- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 respondent has been disclosed by him. He has explained his position pertaining to the properties which the petitioner-wife had claimed to be belonging to him, the respondent-husband has placed on record the income tax return of the petitioner. There is no occasion to draw any adverse inference against the respondent by following the observations of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal's case. In the present case, the trial Court seems to have, after proper application of mind and taking into consideration all the factors, permitted the interim maintenance to be Rs.10,000/- per month, though Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, does not specifically permit the grant of maintenance to the child but it is always prudent for a Court determining interim maintenance taking into consideration the responsibility of maintenance of the minor child by wife unable to maintain herself while estimating the entitlement of maintenance pendente lite. It is not out of place to mention here that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application on the basis of subsequent events i.e., the additional liability of the petitioner to maintain the child on account of enhanced expenditure having been filed before the lower Court, he should be permitted to withdraw this revision petition with liberty to establish before the lower Court that on subsequent and additional grounds, the wife has acquired a right for enhancement of the interim maintenance. Mr.Arun Palli, counsel for the respondent-husband has vehemently contended that it is not a case of enhancement of maintenance pendente lite but a case where on account of conduct C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -8- C.R. No.6256 of 2008 of the petitioner and availability of enough resources with the respondent the petition should have been dismissed. He submitted that in view of the petitioner having ultimately not pressed the revision petition for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite, he may also be permitted to withdraw the revision petition as not pressed but he contended that the withdrawal of the revision petition may not be treated to imply that his right to contest the petition for additional maintenance pendente lite could be prejudiced. Both the revision petitions are dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties in application for enhancement of maintenance pending before the Court below. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 21, 2009. rka