IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1823 of 2006 SHAILENDRA KUMAR Versus GEETA DEVI & ANR ----------- 4. 11.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court having perused the material on record including the impugned order would not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month by way of interim maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Rs. 5000/- in lump sum as cost of litigation is either excessive or illegal. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that a vital document, showing payment of amount through Panchnama, as contained in Annexure 3, was not taken into consideration, in the opinion of this Court, does not have any merit inasmuch as that document by itself does not throw any light on the crucial issue of income and/or liability of the petitioner. In any case either on account of repayment as amount of dowry taken by the petitioner or his family members and/or its return to the family member of the wife of the petitioner, the wife cannot be deprived 2 from making the claim of payment of maintenance when the petitioner himself would file a divorce suit. Section 24 in fact only gives an opportunity and/or scope to a non- earning wife to maintain herself and contest the litigation and at that stage she is to be maintained by the husband is a dignified manner. Moreover there being a clear finding to that effect in the impugned order and the Panchnama which does not contain signature of the wife, opposite party infact is of no relevance to the said issue. The first point raised by the petitioner thus must fail. The second point taken by the petitioner that his salary sheet, as contained in Annexure 2, would go to show that his total emolument was Rs. 7012/- and his deductions were Rs. 3230/- which will leave him with a take-home salary of Rs. 3737/- only and therefore, the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month fixed by way of maintenance is wholly excessive is also to be noticed only for its being rejected. From the salary sheet it is clear that the petitioner is contributing almost 42% of his salary per month in provident fund, whereas the requirement of law 3 is to contribute only 8.33%. Therefore, whatever is being paid by the petitioner beyond 8.33% is his own savings. That being so, the petitioner can not be permitted to secure his future by Jeopardising the present life of his wife, the opposite party. Therefore, the second ground also must fail. Coming to the third ground of allegation adultery on the part of wife of the petitioner, this Court would only hold that prima-facie such vague allegation of adultery as taken by the petitioner for the purposes of the divorce suit would not withstand the test of scrutiny of a prudent person much less will have any bearing on the issue of payment of maintenance pendetelite under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Moreover this Court fails to understand as to how at this stage the allegation of adultery will be sufficient to deny a wife contesting a litigation of divorce filed by her husband in getting the maintenance. Accordingly, the plea of adultery also is to be noticed for its being rejected. Then, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has also other pressing liability and 4 therefore, the liability towards his wife the opposite party should be treated to be secondary. In the opinion of this Court it was the own making of the petitioner himself that he had filed a divorce suit forcing a litigation on his wife and therefore, even if he may have other obligations he has to share this liability till the matrimonial case is finally decided. It has to be remembered that this is only maintenance pendentelite and ultimately the Court may hold the case of the petitioner to be genuine for grant divorce with or without permanent alimony but at the moment the order of the court below cannot be said to be vitiated either on fact or in law on the grounds as mentioned above. There being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. The court below is directed to ensure that the arrear and current amount is realized from the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 5