IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1180 of 2004 Date of Decision : August 21, 2009 Munish Jain ....Petitioner Versus Rita Jain alias Ritu .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate Mr. R.K.Dogra, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The present revision has been filed by the husband with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was accepted and she was awarded interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month and another sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to her son Mianak Jain. The respondent was also awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of those proceedings, the wife filed an application for the grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses by C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -2- pleading that she owned no moveable or immovable property and had no source of income. All the gold ornaments and valuable articles were in the possession of the husband. Her two minor sons Mianak Jain and Anshul Jain were living with her. On the other hand, the husband had sufficient resources as he owned a kothi and having a running business from which he was earning Rs.5/6 lacs every year. Accordingly, she prayed for awarding her an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, Rs.3,000/- per month for her own maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of each of her two minor sons. The application was opposed by the husband by submitting that the wife was in possession of a number of ornaments which belong to his family. She had taken away twenty tolas of gold and Rs.30,000/- in cash when she left Bathinda. Besides, she had inherited huge cash and other properties from her previous husband Rajesh Jain. She was well educated and could easily earn Rs.5,000/- per month by taking tuition. She knew knitting, weaving and stitching and, therefore, could earn huge amounts from these activities. Their one son, namely, Anshul Jain was living with him and he was also willing to keep his other son Mianak Jain with him. He denied that he was owner of a kothi, rather, he was living with his parents. His business had gone down and his income was not more than Rs.4,000/- per month. His father met with an accident in the year 1993 whereas his mother was patient of high blood pressure and diabetes. He had to spend a huge amount upon the treatment of his parents. C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda accepted the application filed by the respondent-wife by holding that though the petitioner-husband had pleaded his income to be Rs.4,000/- per month from business activities, yet he concealed his real income as he did not produce even his income tax returns. His income was, accordingly, taken to be in the range of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Moreover, the petitioner had already agreed to maintain his minor son Mianak Jain whereas the other son, namely, Ansuhl Jain was already living with him. Accordingly, he was directed to pay various amounts, as mentioned above, to the respondent as litigation expenses and interim maintenance. The revision came up for preliminary hearing on March 05, 2004 when notice of motion was issued and in the meanwhile, maintenance to the wife beyond Rs.1500/- per month was ordered to remain stayed. After appearance of the respondent, the revision was admitted on 1.2.2005 and the order dated March 05, 2004 was made absolute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-wife is having sufficient and independent income for her support and, therefore, she was not entitled to be granted interim maintenance. Moreover, the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act could only be awarded to the wife and not to the children but the learned trial Court has awarded an amount of Rs.2000/- per month as interim maintenance for Mianak Jain, son of the parties and the said C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -4- amount to be paid to the respondent being his mother. It is also submitted that it was the respondent-wife, who had been harassing the petitioner and his parents as she falsely implicated them in a criminal case by filing an application to the police on the basis of which FIR No. 56 dated 6.4.2004 was registered at Police Station, Mukerian, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. After the presentation of the challan, the petitioner and his parents were charge-sheeted under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. Vide judgment dated 1.7.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, held that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner and his parents maltreated the respondent for demand of dowry. Further, the prosecution failed to prove that the dowry articles were ever entrusted to the petitioner and his parents or that they misappropriated the same. Accordingly, all of them have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. It has also been submitted that the respondent-wife is delaying the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act before the trial Court on one pretext or the other with the sole purpose of getting maintenance amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the respondent owns no property nor she has any source of income. Vague and general pleas have been put by the petitioner-husband that she is in a position to earn sufficient income by doing knitting, weaving and stitching, besides, taking tuition. It is also submitted that even the child of the parties was entitled to the interim maintenance as the said child was living with the respondent. As regards the criminal case in which the C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -5- petitioner and his parents stand acquitted, learned counsel submitted that the yardstick to be applied in a criminal case is different from the one required for deciding the application under Section 24 of the Act. In a criminal case, the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt whereas the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are summary in nature and are to be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. As regards the trial of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has not unduly delayed the conclusion of the trial. There is no denial of the fact that the parties are at loggerheads with each other since the year 2002. As is apparent from the judgment dated 1.7.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, while acquitting the petitioner and his parents under Section 406 and 498A IPC, which judgment has been taken on record by an order of the even date, the father of the respondent had moved an application on 6.4.2002 before DSP, Bathinda regarding the demand of dowry and threats to the life of the respondent by the petitioner. Since 7.4.2002, the parties are residing separately. The petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 26.8.2003. Upon her appearance, the respondent-wife, besides, filing her reply, also filed an application dated 6.12.2003, under Section 24 of the Act wherein she sought the grant of interim maintenance to her as well as for her minor son, besides the litigation expenses. The C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -6- application under Section 24 of the Act filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner by filing his reply dated 15.1.2004. It is also admitted that the parties are having two sons, one of which is living with the petitioner-husband while the other with the respondent-wife. There is no sufficient material brought on the record by the petitioner-husband that the respondent is having adequate income from which she could run her household, besides, maintaining her minor son Mianak Jain. Only general and vague pleas have been taken that the respondent-wife is an educated person and was, thus, in a position to earn sufficient income by taking tuition, besides, she knew knitting, weaving and stitching and could still earn more from these activities. The petitioner has not denied that he was having his own business. According to the respondent-wife he was earning an amount of Rs.5 to 6 lacs per annum. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has pleaded that from his business he could only earn Rs.4,000/- per month. However, he did not produce his income tax returns from which it could be made out that as to what was his annual income. Under these circumstances, learned lower Court below was justified in holding that his income was in the range of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Admittedly, Mianak Jain, minor son of the parties, is living with the respondent. The petitioner had earlier admitted before the learned Court below that he was ready to maintain that child. As such there is no bar to the grant of interim maintenance to the respondent-wife as it is she C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -7- who is required to look after the minor son, namely, Mianak Jain. The petitioner and his parents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 406 and 498A IPC on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove those allegations against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The standard of proof required for convicting the accused in a criminal case is much more strict than the one required for deciding the application under Section 24 of the act. In the latter proceedings, only a summary enquiry is required to be made. As such, mere fact that the petitioner and his parents have been acquitted of the criminal charges is no ground to absolve the petitioner of the liability under Section 24 of the Act. The interim orders passed by the learned Court below, while trying the petition under Section 13 of the Act have also been brought on the record by an order of the even date. A perusal of those orders would reveal that the evidence of the petitioner-husband was closed on 14.1.2008. A period of more than 4 years passed for completing the pleadings and recording of the evidence of the petitioner-husband. The interim orders passed by the learned Court below do not reveal that the respondent-wife is taking unduly long for examining her evidence. She has to look after her minor son, who is school going. On a couple of occasions, she had appeared before the learned trial Court but had sought adjournment on the ground that her son was not well and she had to attend upon him. On one of the occasions she herself was not feeling well. C.R. No. 1180 of 2004 -8- The respondent-wife had been granted an amount of Rs.2500/- per month as interim maintenance by the learned Court below, whereas she was awarded another sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance for her minor son Mianak Jain. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.2500/- per month awarded to the respondent-wife for her own maintenance is slightly on the higher side. Instead, ends of justice would be amply met if she is granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month. As regards the amount of Rs.2000/- per month awarded to the respondent-wife as maintenance of her minor son Mianak Jain and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, the Court feels that no case is made out for any alteration/modification. Resultantly, the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife is reduced from Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.2000/- per month from today. The maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- awarded to the respondent-wife for her minor son Mianak Jain and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses are maintained. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 21, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1