Inderjeet Mitra v. Master Abhishek alias Ariji Mita & Ors.

Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents ______________________________________________________________ Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. : Surjnder Singh, J(oral). The petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned trial court in petition No. No.92/4 of 2005, whereby the respondent-wife was granted Rs.7,000/- per month and her son Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of petition. The admitted facts of the case are: (i) The petitioner married respondent Ananya Basu on

18.4.2004 at Shimla. From this wedlock, she gave birth to respondent No.1 Master Abhishek alias Arijit Mitra. (ii) The petitioner is a software Engineer, a very good businessman running a Company the city of Ahemdabad. (iii) The petitioner is having his own luxury flat in the city of Ahemdabad. Besides this he is also maintaining Car and has one plot measuring 300 square yards at Pune. (iv) Respondent No.2 is a daughter of a retired IAS Officer. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 (v) The petitioner and the respondents are now residing separately. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 C.P.C. wherein she alleged maltreatment, harassment and demand of dowry, which is pending in the trial court. According to her, when everything became intolerable, she took refuge in the house of her parents along with he minor son. The petitioner alleged the income of her husband Rs.5 Lac per month, therefore, sought the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per month to her and Rs.25,000/- to her son to meet the expenses of his education etc, which fact has been denied by the petitioner-husband in his detailed reply.

According to him, his yearly salary is Rs.1,50,000/- and cannot afford to pay this much amount to the respondents, which fact goes contrary to para (J) of the grounds mentioned in Cr.MMO No.35/2005 filed for quashing the FIR No.78/2004 dated 25.4.2004 under the Dowry Act, against him and the other family members, the copy of the petition is placed on record as Annexure (cid:145)C(cid:146) by the respondents and was taken note of by the leaned trial court, wherein it was mentioned by the petitioner that the allegations of demand of dowry by his wife was baseless and there was no reason for him and his family members to demand dowry at any point of time because he is having a very good business at Ahemdabad and having more than hundred highly paid employees under him. He has got a luxury flat in the posh area of Ahemdabad city and air-conditioned vehicle for the use of his family. He used to travel abroad frequently along with his-wife several 3 times.

He also allowed the respondent-wife to enroll in an expensive coaching class for preparation of IAS examination and also to appear in B.Ed. examination. The respondent-wife used to travel by air and AC trains, which was being paid by him and further that his mother Smt. Krishna Mitra is also self sufficient lady having her own house and a steady income from her savings and tuition classes. Petitioner-husband had opened a bank account and provided cash-credit facility for the respondent-wife so that she could spend as per her need and desire. Faced with the aforesaid situation, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner takes only his salary to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per year from his Company, as is evident from the income tax statement and further submitted that he has been defraying the fee of his son who is studying in an excellent convent school at Kolkatta, besides this petitioner has to maintain his mother, therefore, interim maintenance awarded by the learned trial court is too excessive.

But, these submissions are contrary to the averments made in Annexure (cid:145)C(cid:146) referred above. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that keeping in view the standard and status of the parties, the order of interim maintenance is too meager and the minor son of the petitioner is residing with his mother (respondent No.2). She is maintaining and providing good education to him and on the top of it, she was unnecessarily dragged into the 4 litigation by the acts ad conduct of the petitioner-husband, which incurred the extra financial burden on her. I have considered the rival contentions and went through the pleadings on record. From the admitted facts, it appears that both the parties are well educated and belongs to very good families. The petitioner- husband is also a successful businessman who is running a software company. From the record, it is prima-facie established that the petitioner-husband is having handsome earning.

The income tax returns are voluntarily disclosures which are not finalised by the Income Tax department. Respondent No.1 is also studying in the best convent school at Kolkatta, who is being looked after by his mother and the learned trial court has taken note of the above circumstances and passed a speaking order for granting interim maintenance which has been inter-alia assailed in this petition, on the grounds that the respondent-wife has the potential to earn and he had never neglected or refused to maintain them. In fact the interim order of maintenance is provisional in nature and subject to its adjustment later. Keeping in view the status and standard of living of the parties and the requirement of money to impart good education to the child, the amount awarded in interim is not excessive. Since I do not find any error of jurisdiction and abuse of the process in the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed.

The interim order passed on 12.1.2006, which was confirmed on 7.6.2006 in Cr.MP No.579 of 2005 is hereby vacated. 5 The trial court record be returned and the parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla on 28.8.2008. The learned trial court shall make every endeavour to dispose it of on or before 31st January, 2009. Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for deciding the present petition, it shall not effect or be taken into account by the leaned trial court while deciding the case on its merits. August 04, 2008. ( Pds ) (Surinder Singh) Judge.