MANSI BATHWAL Vs. BHARAT KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-wife is aggrieved of order dated 4.9.2017 passed in O.S. (MTS) No. 690 of 2016 by which the Trial Judge on an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has directed the respondent - husband to pay Rs. 20,000.00 to the respondent - wife and her three daughters as maintenance pendente lite. The husband has also been directed to spend f 4,20,000.00 every year on education, books, dresses etc. for his daughters.

(2.) Briefly stated, Original (Matrimonial) Suit (M.T.S) No. 690 of 2016 was instituted by the respondent - husband for a decree for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner -wife. The plaintiff has asserted that out of the wedlock three daughters were bom, for whose education he is spending about Rs. 4,20,000.00 every year. In the suit an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the wife seeking ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000.00 per month and Rs. 1,00,000.00 for legal expenses. This application was resisted by the husband pleading that his total income is about Rs. 10,00,000.00per annum and his expenses in a year is about Rs. 9,10,000.00. Besides Rs. 4,20,000.00which he claims he is spending on expenses for education of his daughters, his further stand is that he has to invest Rs. 60,000.00 per annum for future of his daughters and his own expenses besides legal expenses and police cases come to around Rs. 3,00,000.00. The wife in her application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has asserted that her husband is a reputed businessman at Ranchi who is running wholesale business of cloths in the name and style of M/s. Gokul Chand Niranjan Lal at Upper Bazar, Ranchi and he is earning more than Rs. 50,00,000.00 per month. The husband has controverted this stand by pleading that he is only a partner in the firm with a share of 5% only. His further claim is that he Is filing income tax return for about Rs. 1,30,000.00 per annum. This he has asserted in his affidavit-in-opposition dated 18.8.2017. Obviously, he must be referring to his income tax return for the year 2016 or 2017. He, however, has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his stand as reflected in the affidavit dated 18.8.2017. His three daughters, elder daughter was studying in Class - X and other two daughters were studying in Class - IV at the time when the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. In his affidavit the husband has not disputed the stand of his wife that she has no independent source of income. He has also failed to produce any document corroborating his stand that he is spending Rs. 4,20,000.00 every year on education of his daughters. Still, simply extracting the stand taken by the plaintiff - husband in his affidavit dated 18.8.2017 the Trial Judge has directed him to pay Rs. 20,000.00 as maintenance pendente lite for his wife and three daughters.

(3.) Impugned order dated 4.9.2017 passed on the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 discloses that the Trial Judge has adopted a procedure which is unknown in law. The Trial Judge has not recorded a finding why the stand taken by the defendant - wife cannot be accepted and without there being any documentary evidence how the stand of the plaintiff - husband can be considered as gospel truth, to order Rs. 20,000.00 as maintenance pendente lite.