NAMRATA KALIA Vs. SAMEER KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for grant of maintenance pendente lite to the applicant-appellant Namrata Kalia and minor daughter of the parties Arushi Kalia, pending disposal of appeal (FAO-M-59-2013).

(2.) Counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that marriage of the parties was performed on 27.04.2003 at Hotel Pallavi, Sector 5, Panchkula. A daughter namely Arushi Kalia was born out of the wedlock on 04.09.2004. The child was initially admitted in Euro Kids, Pre-school Specialist, Sector 18-B, Chandigarh in the year 2007 and thereafter, in Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, Chandigarh in the year 2010. The applicant has to spend more than Rs. 70,000/- per month for up keep and maintenance of the child as well as herself. Before her marriage, she had a car and enjoyed other amenities of life as she is the daughter of an architect valuer and standing counsel for number of banks namely Sh. Jatinder Sharma. The respondent (husband) is doing business with his father Sh. Subhash Goyal under the name and style of M/s Kalia Trade Links, SCF 69, Grain Market Sector 26, Chandigarh and also own 10 marla house in Panchkula, maintains a car and lives a luxurious life. He is earning more than Rs. 5 lacs per month and the applicant may be awarded adequate maintenance to enjoy the status equal to that of her husband. She also requires money for the up keep and education of the child in the light of expenses incurred for her admission, school fee etc. and her other requirements to keep in pace with her growing needs and to face peer pressure. It is prayed that the applicant-appellant may be allowed maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.70,000/- per month.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent has submitted that maintenance allowed to the child @ Rs. 3000/- per month in another proceedings has been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per month and the applicant (wife) is getting maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- pr month. The maintenance already awarded in favour of the applicant and the child is more than sufficient to satisfy their needs and is also commensurate to the income of the respondent. It is further argued that in the income tax returns filed by the respondent (husband) for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, his gross income is approximately Rs. 3 lacs out of which the respondent has to incur personal expenditure. It is vehemently argued that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance more than what has been allowed in other proceedings.