CHETRAM MALI Vs. KARISHMA SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order under Sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA' for short) dated April 24, 2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court (South), Saket, New Delhi in HMA 318/2022, whereby the appellant was directed to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.30,000.00 per month towards maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the petition till its disposal along with litigation expenses of Rs.51,000.00.

(2.) In brief, appellant was married to respondent on November 19, 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Further, respondent returned back to her parental home on July 07, 2020 owing to differences between the parties. Respondent is stated to have preferred a complaint under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('PWVD Act' for short) against the appellant and his family members on January 27, 2021, wherein the appellant was directed to pay Rs.21,000.00 per month to the respondent as maintenance vide order dated December 12, 2022. Appellant also preferred the divorce petition against respondent before the Family Court wherein the impugned order has been passed under Sec. 24 of HMA, directing the appellant to pay Rs.30,000.00 per month towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent along with litigation expenses.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000.00 per month as maintenance in the proceedings under PWDV Act, which has been enhanced to Rs.30,000.00 in the proceedings under Sec. 24 of HMA without any change in circumstances. The gross salary of the appellant in terms of salary slip for May, 2022 is stated to be ?1,04,276/- but in hand salary is claimed as Rs.47,784.00. It is further submitted that respondent is a Graduate from Delhi University and working as Receptionist in Shuddhi Ayurveda Panchkarma Hospital and earning more than Rs.25,000.00 per month. Also, a sum of Rs.11,000.00 is stated to have already been paid to the respondent towards litigation expenses. It is vehemently urged that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant is the only earning member in the family and has to support his sisters, brothers and aged parents. It is further submitted that appellant had also borrowed a loan of Rs.4.00 lakh from his employer for marriage of his younger brother and was paying instalments towards the same.