GAURAV SONDHI Vs. DIYA SONDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 CPC by the petitioner/husband had originally challenged the order dated 21st July, 2003 which held that the issue of delay in filing of written statement and its consequences shall be considered after the decision in the proceedings under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this may not be the correct position in law as well as in equity because once an interim order for maintenance and litigation is passed, there is no disability on the part of the respondent wife to file a written statement/reply and this should not be delayed further. I am of the view that in matrimonial matters, the Court should ensure that interim maintenance is granted expeditiously and litigation expenses are paid to the wife. Once the litigation expenses and interim maintenance are paid to the wife, the Court should ensure that the written statement/reply be filed within a reasonable time thereafter.

(2.) The counsel for the respondent/wife, however, pointed out that the maintenance awarded is not being regularly paid to her and the petitioner/husband is in arrears. Both the counsel for the petitioner/husband, Shri Sanjay Jain and the respondent/wife, Shri Vivek Sood have made useful suggestions in public interest to alleviate hardship to a spouse judicially found to be deserving maintenance.

(3.) In dealing with matrimonial matters, this Court has noticed that even though interim maintenance/maintenance has been awarded to the wife and/or the child, the payment is often not made regularly per month and the recipient wife or child are often at the mercy of the whim and fancy of the husband/father. More often than not, the ordered monthly maintenance is not paid every month but paid cumulatively on the next date of hearing for the intervening months. The court dates are often spaced more than 4 to 5 months apart due to the overcrowded schedule of the matrimonial courts. Thus a judicial order determining maintenance is rendered nugatory and ineffectual during the interregnum. Expenses are incurred for survival and sustenance regularly by the recipient and the daily needs of the wife/child cannot await the next date in Court. Maintenance to a wife and child is ordered when economic circumstances indicating want and need have been judicially determined. Maintenance amount is paid in the nature of subsistence and sustenance and a belated payment sporadically does not serve the aim and object of the payment of maintenance. Since expenses for sustenance are incurred regularly the staggered and delayed payment may end up defeating the objects behind ordering payment of maintenance. The grocery bill, rent payment, school fees, telephone, electricity and water dues are required to be paid on the due date and will not await the contingency of the receipt of the payment on a future date in Court. It has thus become necessary to ensure that maintenance payment to a wife/child is made at least on a regular monthly basis and defaults for no justifiable cause ought not to go scot free without sanctions.