AJIT ARJANI Vs. ROMA ARJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal quarrel between the spouses had started on 1st February, 1996 with the filing of a divorce petition by the Husband, namely Shri Ajit Arjani. It is not clear when the Wife, namely, Roma Arjani, was served with the summons of the divorce petition, or the date on which she gained knowledge of that petition. In April 1996 an F.I.R. was lodged by the Wife under Section 406/498A of the I.P.C. In those proceedings, on 15.5.1996, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the Husband to the Wife. It is the contention of the Husband that this sum was paid towards maintenance/settlement, but the Wife contends that this was towards repayment of a loan. On 31st May, 1996, a Suit for Maintenance was filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the H.A. & M. Act) which was accompanied by an application for grant of interim maintenance, On 3rd October, 1997, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month was awarded by the Additional District Judge (ADJ). The Revisionist Husband has inter alia contended in C.R.P. No. 1077/1997 that since the valuation of the suit was made at Rs.6 lacs, the Additional District Judge did not possess pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit at that relevant time. This is the grievance of the Revisionist against the Order dated 3.10.1997. An application was filed by the Wife in the Divorce Petition invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HM Act) which came to be decided by the Matrimonial Court on 21.4.1999, fixing interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. This interim Order was predicated on Orders passed by this Court on 22.10.1997 in CM. 3754/97 in C.R. 1077/1997 directing payment of Rs.2,500/- per month with effect from the date of the application as interim maintenance.

(2.) At this stage, Learned Senior Counsel for the Husband states that the fixation of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month, which had been determined in interlocutory proceedings in C.R.P. No. 1077/ 1997, is not under challenge. The effect is that, without prejudice to the final order that may be passed, interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month is presently not in dispute. It is also well settled that if maintenance is granted under various provisions and sundry proceedings, the highest amount is the maximum liability towards maintenance, Keeping in view the pendency of the proceedings since 1997, and payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500 per month, and the statement of Learned Senior Counsel for the Husband, I am of the view that no interference is called forinC.R.P. No. 620/1999.

(3.) It is certainly arguable that if the Court did not possess any pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 18 of the. H. A. & M. Act the suit having been valued at Rs. 6 lacs, interim orders ought not to have been passed by the Additional District Judge. This question does not, however, fall for further consideration or determination since interim maintenance has now been fixed at Rs.2500/- per month to which the Wife has no objection as an interim arrangement. C.R.P. No. 1077/1997 is allowed and the impugned Order is set aside.