TARUN KUMAR RAM Vs. POOJA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dtd. 1/12/2022 passed in Original Suit No.602 of 2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to allow the application dtd. 15/7/2022 filed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act holding that the wife is entitled to get maintenance pendente-lite and the husband has been directed to pay Rs.8,000.00 per month to wife and Rs.2000.00 per month to the son from the date of filing of the case i.e. 22/9/2021 along with the arrears of maintenance pendente-lite within six month in equal installments from the date of passing of the order and the litigation cost of Rs.5,000.00. 2. Mr. Pandey Niraj Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the opposite party got their marriage solemnized on 24/11/2013 and out of said wed-lock a child was born on 21/8/2014. The opposite party wife has filed a suit on 22/9/2021 seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide Original Suit No.602 of 2021. The petitioner has filed his written statement on 11/4/2022 to the plaint in Original Suit No.602 of 2021. Thereafter the opposite party wife has filed the application on 15/7/2022 under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance and pendente lite and the expense of proceeding. She claimed that at the time of marriage the husband was a B.E and had a good income and she used to incur Rs.1,300.00 per month as school fees, Rs.9,101.00 as annual fees of the child, Rs.5,000.00 towards clothes and medicines and Rs.10,000.00 per month towards her expenses. She claimed Rs.35,000.00 per month as total maintenance pendente lite. He submits that a rejoinder to the petition was filed by the husband who is the petitioner denying the claims. He submits that the plea was taken that at the time of marriage the petitioner's earning was good but now he is unemployed and dependent upon his mother's pension for his own survival. He submits that it was also pointed out that the wife without any rhyme and reason started living separately and absurd demand of Rs.35,000.00 by way of maintenance pendente lite has been sought. The wife is working as LIC agent whereby she has been earning well. In this background, he submits that the learned court has not considered the present status of the petitioner who is an unemployed person and pulling his livelihood by way of running a mobile repair shop and to buttress his such arguments he draws the attention of the Court to the Income Certificate issued by the Government of Orissa, Office of Tehsildar and submits that his annual income is Rs.One lac only. In this background, he submits that the learned court has erroneously passed the order and the maintenance amount is at higher side and the learned court has not considered the living standard of both the sides and has passed the order which is not in accordance with law. He submits that the said order may kindly be quashed. He further submits that in the order, the leraned court has taken note of the fact that his annual income is Rs.one lac and inspite of that the said order has been passed.

(3.) Mr. Prabhash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole Opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has allowed a very meagre amount for maintenance of Rs.8,000.00 for wife and Rs.2,000/- for the child. He submits that till date, the petitioner has not paid any single penny to the opposite party/wife and she has been put to harassment. The child is now 10 years old and studying in Class -IV in a school at Ranchi. He submits that the child is also being maintained by the wife and she has also to incur expenses on his studies and the husband and wife are living separately since 19/1/2019 when the wife /opposite party was driven out from her matrimonial home after taking over all her jewelleries and she was also assaulted and forced to leave her matrimonial home. The petitioner /husband is having B.E degree and has good income and at the time of marriage, the petitioner /husband had disclosed his monthly income as Rupees One Lakh and he has denied the statement that now he is earning Rs.One lac. He relied in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein at paragraph nos.78 and 81 it has been held as under: