MANMOHAN KOHLI Vs. NATASHA KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge allowing the application of the respondent filed under section 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance of Rs. 20 Lac per month for herself and her minor son. The trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month towards the minor son and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs to the respondent wife. The brief facts that are necessary to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.04.1994 a son, who is presently stated to be 14 years of age, was born out of the wedlock. Admittedly, the respondent continues to stay in the matrimonial house along with her minor son. The petitioner has filed a petition for a decree of nullity of marriage with the respondent on the grounds that the respondent was already married at the time of her marriage with the petitioner.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as maintenance for the minor son since the said amount is highly excessive, usurious and exorbitant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the minor child is in the joint custody of both the parties and it is the petitioner who is looking after and providing for all the needs of the child. The counsel for the petitioner next submits that admittedly, the respondent along with the minor child continue to reside in the matrimonial home. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in addition to providing the finances for running the household (including but not limited to salary of domestic servants, security of the house and kitchen expenses), the petitioner has also provided the minor son with a Chauffer driven car for the minor child's comfort. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also incurring all the ancillary expenses such as school fess, tuition fees, money for extra -curricular activities for the minor son. The counsel contends that since the entire expenses of the child are being borne by the petitioner, the maintenance awarded to the minor son would be purely spent by the respondent to enrich herself. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has erred in awarding arrears of maintenance from the date of application since all expenses have been met by the petitioner till date. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to bear all the legitimate expenses for the minor son.

(3.) IT is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been providing for all the needs including payment of school fees of the minor child however, pursuant to filing of the suit C.S. 1321/06, the respondent with an intent to create a false impression started paying the school fees of the minor child.