MEENU CHOPRA Vs. DEEPAK CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance as an indigent person under the provisions of Order XXXIII read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. The respondent has not appeared despite service and accordingly by order dated 8th March,2001 he was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner was permitted to file affidavit disclosing the assets in her possession. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that petitioner is not in possession of sufficient means to enable her to pay Court Fee and in fact she does not own any moveable and immovable property. In view of these averments made on affidavit and there being no rebuttal or opposition, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the Court Fee in the instant Case. The prayer to sue as an 'indigent person is allowed. I.A. No.1646/2001 stands disposed of. Let this I.P.A. be registered as a suit by the Registry.

(2.) This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim maintenance. It is specifically averred in the petition that the defendant, husband of the plaintiff, is earning not less than Rs.2.00 lacs per month. Particulars of the employment of the defendant are given in Para-27 of the petition. Since defendant has chosen to remain absent, no reply is filed controverting, these allegations. It would be significant to note at this stage that plaintiff had, before filing this petition, sent legal notice dated 20/06/2000 demanding maintenance from the defendant. In that notice plaintiff had demanded maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 per month. The defendant had given reply dated 10/07/2000 to this notice.A perusal of this reply shows that the defendant while refuting the claim of the plaintiff to get the maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00per month alleged that amount of maintenance was dependent on the status of the parties and reasonable wants of the claimant. It is further alleged that plaintiff's father at the time of his retirement earned only Rs.3,000.00p,m. and, therefore, demand for maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00p,m. was most amusing. This stand of the defendant is clear from the following portion of the aforesaid reply:

(3.) I am also amused. I am also amazed. At the stand taken by the defendant. Significantly in this reply defendant has not stated that demand for Rs.20,000.00 is otherwise excessive or he is not possessed of sufficient financial means to pay this maintenance. The claim of the plaintiff to get maintenance at this rate was refuted only on the ground that the plaintiff comes from the family with modest means and was not having the status entitling her to get maintenance of Rs.20 ,000.00per month. The defendant was referring to the alleged status of plaintiff's paternal family. The status of the parents of the plaintiff is totally irrelevant consideration. After the marriage it is the status of the husband which is determinative of the quantum of maintenance to be given to the wife. After the marriage a girl adopts matrimonial home and gets attuned to the living standard of her husband. She is identified with the family of her husband. She acquires her husband's family name. If she has to suffer his miseries, she has right to enjoy his affluence also. Therefore, if the husband is wealthy and leading opulent life, his wife also has right to be the partner in his prosperity and live with same standards and equal dignity. It does not lie in the mouth of the husband, after separation of the spouses, to say that wife is no longer entitled to the standard in which she has been living with the husband and that she should re-adopt the standard of her parental home. Lord Denning aptly observed in this context: