AMIT KHANNA Vs. PRIYANKA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions petitioners, husband and wife have assailed order dated 26th October, 2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in appeal. Ms Priyanka Khanna had moved an application before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also made an interim application for residence, protection and maintenance. Learned MM considered the income of the husband for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and found that annual gross income of the husband for the latest financial year i.e. 2007-08 was ' 3,47,550/- (before deduction of tax). She considered that gross monthly income of the husband was between ' 28,000/- and ' 29,000/-. She awarded monthly maintenance of ' 10,000/- to the wife. Apart from that, she also awarded ' 5,000/- per mensem (p.m.) as rent for residence. Thus, she awarded ' 15,000/- p.m. to the wife. In appeal, the learned ASJ enhanced the house rent payable to the wife from ' 5,000/- p.m. to ' 15,000/- p.m. and maintenance from ' 10,000/- p.m. to ' 30,000/- p.m., although, the husband had placed before the learned ASJ his latest salary slip showing gross monthly income of ' 41,000/-. This enhancement was done by the learned ASJ on the ground that husband was a man of status and owner of vast movable and immovable properties and it was a matter of common knowledge that parties generally conceal their actual income and do not show their real income in the Income Tax Returns. The respondent-wife was alone in this world. She had lost her job and was unemployed and was living with her parents and dependent on them. It was also observed by the learned ASJ that it was very difficult to find a suitable residence by paying ' 5,000/- p.m.

(2.) It is noteworthy that a petition for divorce was filed by the husband which is pending before the court of ADJ and the learned ADJ after considering the material vide order dated 16th September, 2008, granted to the wife a monthly maintenance of ' 25,000/- from the date of filing of application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act till the disposal of the case and awarded ' 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(3.) It is evident from the order passed by the learned ASJ that he has not enumerated the vast movable and immovable properties owned by the husband. Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the Court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband. When allegations are made by the spouses about the vast movable and immovable properties of other, even for passing an interim order the allegations must be substantiated by some sort of documentary evidence. The properties existing in the name of sister-in-law, mother or father cannot be considered to be the properties of the spouses. If such properties are considered as properties of husband, then property existing in the name of father of the wife, mother of the wife or brother or sister of the wife could reflect her status and income and the courts can think that a wife has sufficient properties and she does not need maintenance.