RADHA MEHTA Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by challenging order dated 27.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, holding that the petitioner-wife is entitled to be paid maintenance for her two daughters by her husband-respondent. The principal ground for dismissing the application of the petitioner wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') is that the petitioner-wife has already sufficient independent income even to maintain her two daughters.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent-husband filed a petition No. 6 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the alternative, prayer has been made for judicial separation. The parties were married to each other on 9.10.1978 and two daughters namely Vandana Mehta and Swati Mehta were born out of the wedlock on 3.4.1980 and 20.2.1990 respectively. Both the daughters have been residing with the petitioner-wife and all their expenses like boarding, lodging, schooling, etc. are being met by the petitioner-wife. During the pendency of the afore-mentioned petition, she moved an application that her source of income is limited and it is not possible for her to maintain and bear all the expenses of the two daughters. It was further averred that respondent-husband is holding the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School and getting a salary of Rs. 20,000/- over and above the said income of Rs. 10,000/-. It has been alleged that he has been avoiding his liability on one pretext or the other. Accordingly, a prayer was made to pay maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for the two children and also litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. The stand of the respondent-husband in the reply to the application filed before the Additional District Judge was that the petitioner-wife is working as an Assistant Administrative Officer and drawing a salary of Rs. 26,000/-. It is further averred that she owns a residential House No. 428/1A, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh which has been built up with the aid of respondent-husband and is fully paid up. It is further alleged that the petitioner-wife is leading a luxurious life as she has two ACs installed in the house and owns her own car. As the income at the hands of the petitioner-wife is sufficient, she can look after the children. It is further pointed out that the custody of the children has not been given to respondent-husband despite his request. He has pleaded that he is not earning anything and on account of the fact that the elder daughter Vandana is major, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

(3.) MR . Vinod Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has committed a grave error in law, inasmuch as it has been concluded that Section 24 has to be confined to the payment of maintenance pendente lite only to the spouses and it cannot be extended to the children. The learned counsel has maintained that there are sufficient provisions made under Section 26 of the Act as well as in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance to the children. In that regard, he has made reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1997 SC 3397 : 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 65 (SC) and also a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajni Abrol v. Adarsh Abrol, 1991(1) Hindu Law Reporter 168. Mr. Chaudhary has then pointed out that the elder daughter is doing her M.B.A. in Delhi and her admission expenses were about Rs. 2.00 lacs. He has then submitted that Rs. 6,000/- p.m. is spent on her boarding and lodging. With regard to the younger daughter, it has been submitted that she is about 14 years of age and she is studying in St. Annies School, Sector 32, Chandigarh and her monthly expenditure is not less than Rs. 1,000/-. It has also pointed out that she is suffering from fits, which requires continuous medical expenses and attention. If the income of the petitioner-wife is found to be Rs. 11,000/-, it does not require much imagination that she would be far short of funds and in these compelling circumstances, application for claiming maintenance has to be filed.