ALKA RANI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing of this petition commenced prior to the lunch recess and has continued after lunch as well, but there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent Husband has been entered. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Husband has filed a Pay Certificate dated 9.2.2001 which falsely states that a loan of Rs.3 lacs had been obtained for the treatment of the Husband's mother, since she had already passed away around 1996-1997. In view of this the employers of the Respondent, namely, Northern Railways, were called upon to file an Affidavit disclosing the income of the Husband. This direction has been complied with in terms of the Affidavit of the Assistant Personal Officer (Bills)/Divisional Railway Manager's Office, New Delhi dated 18.9.2003. It discloses the total salary and allowances of the Respondent to be Rs. 5,315/- per month, of which deductions are being made to the extent of Rs.5698/- per month which includes a sum of Rs.5000/- as Voluntary Provident Fund. After disregarding the sum of Rs.5000/-towards Voluntary Provident Fund, which essentially in the nature of a saving/benefit to the Husband, the take home salary and allowances would be Rs.14,000/- per month. By the impugned Order, the Additional District Judge has granted only Rs.1000/- per month for the maintenance of the Wife and Rs.700/- per month for the maintenance of the child with effect from 1st April, 1999.

(2.) While granting maintenance, some formula or yardstick must be adopted and it must not be whimsical or arbitrary. The Court must first arrive at a conclusion about the status or life style of the spouses and their children. It must assess the expenses that are likely for the children including their school fees, tuition, clothes etc. Where their custody is with the mother/wife their expenses should be aggregated, keeping the status of the father/husband in perspective. Maintenance is not a penalty imposed by the Court on the dominant earner; equally it is not a bounty or largesse needlessly inflicted on such spouse. I find it difficult to accept that the expenses of the children can be curtailed to a percentage of earnings; they should be reasonable keeping the family earnings and standings. In the present case the parties obviously belong to a middle class background. Educational expenses itself would be far in excess of Rs.700/- per month. The primary and foremost duty of the Father is to provide funds for all essential requirements. Upon the disposable income is found to be Rs.13,500/- the Trial Court has committed an error in awarding a wholly inadequate amount as maintenance, without disclosing the method by which it has arrived at the said conclusion. In the present case, it has been stated that the Husband has no dependents and that his mother has passed away and his sister is gainfully employed herself. It has been nevertheless been fairly mentioned that the Husband is carrying on a bigamous relationship. Since this relationship is illegal, the expenses and outgoings ought not to be taken into consideration. As a rough and ready calculation, half the salary may be appointed the Husband in the present case. The expenses of the wife and a minor son who is 15 years old and is pursing his eduction cannot be ignored. The impugned Order dated 3.5.2000 is set aside. The Respondent Husband is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the wife and Rs.3500/- to the son with effect from 1st April, 1999. Since there has been only a small increase in the salary as disclosed by the Affidavit of the Assistant Personal Officer (Bills)/Divisional Railway Manager's Office, New Delhi, I do not propose to increase this maintenance.

(3.) It has also been contended that although litigation expenses had been prayed for, none has been granted. This is also discloses an error in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses or proceedings in the Trial Court.