BHUPENDRA SINGH NOTEY Vs. GAGANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the petitioner-husband is directed against the impugned order dtd. 20/1/2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in I.A. No.48-A of 2022 arising out of C.P. No.115 of 2018 directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month to the OP-wife and her daughter as pedentelite maintenance w.e.f. 22/4/2017 and a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards litigation expenses to them in an application U/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (In short "the Act").

(2.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Subham Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerhusband, however, has empathetically submitted that the OP-wife is guilty of protracting litigation for ulterior motive by filing different applications, but fact remains that the petitioner-husband has in the meanwhile resigned from his service for the trauma inflicted by the OP-wife and, thereby, he being income-less is unable to pay such a high amount of pendentelite maintenance to the OP-wife. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that there is no express provision in Sec. 24 of the Act to provide maintenance to the children, but the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the maintenance of the child and granted such an exorbitant amount to the OP-wife. It is also submitted by Mr. Sharma that the OP-wife has given prevaricating statements with regard to income of the petitionerhusband in different proceedings under DV Act & Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the claim for pendentelite maintenance by the OP-wife having been allowed by the learned trial Court granting exorbitant amount, this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India may kindly reduce the quantum of pendentelite maintenance to Rs.5,000.00 by taking into consideration the unemployment of the petitioner-husband & income and qualification of the OP-wife.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Achyutananda Routray, learned counsel appearing for the OP-wife by taking this Court through the relevant portion of the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitionerhusband is not only a qualified person, but also an Electrical Engineer by profession with 32 years of experience in a reputed organization and he thereby may be directed to pay the pendentelite maintenance of Rs.50,000.00 per month because the wife and daughter of the petitioner are also entitled to live commensurate to the standard of living of the petitioner. Further, Mr. Routray by referring to the decision in Parvin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain; (2024) SCC Online SC 3678 has submitted that not only the wife, but also the minor children are entitled to the pendentelite maintenance U/S.24 of the Act and even though the children have not been explicitly referred to therein in Sec. 24 of the Act, but the minor children being dependents to their parents for maintenance and Sec. 26 of the Act provides for the maintenance of children, it would not be advisable to read application U/S. 24 of the Act in isolation to these factors while granting pendentlite maintenance to the spouse and children. Mr. Routray accordingly has prayed to dismiss the writ petition.