The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30905 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India). Mohanish Pratap Singh Chauhan Petitioner -versus- Mitasha Singh Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.Mishra, Sr.Advocate along with Mr.R.K.Agarwal, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :08.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:31.07.2025 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioner-husband by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed to quash the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar in IA No.74 of 2023 arising out of CP No. 289 of 2022 directing the petitioner- husband to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month to the OP-wife in an application U/S. 36 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short, “ the Act”). WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 1 of 12 2. The facts in precise are that the petitioner and the OP are admittedly the wife and husband, but due to dissension, the OP-wife has filed a petition before the learned Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CP No. 289 of 2022 for a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage which was solemnized on 23.12.2015 as per Hindu Rites followed by marriage on 24.12.2015 as per Sikh rites between them. Additionally, the OP-wife has claimed permanent alimony of Rs.2 crores from the petitioner-husband. In such Civil Proceeding, the OP-wife has filed an application U/s. 36 of the Act in IA No. 74 of 2023 for maintenance pendente lite and the learned Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar by an order passed on 06.12.2023 had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the OP-wife towards her interim maintenance till disposal of the Civil Proceeding, but subsequently after evidence being tendered, the OP- wife again filed a petition on 13.09.2024 seeking enhancement of interim maintenance in the Civil Proceeding and the learned Judge Family Court by the impugned order has enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs.75,000/- per month and directed the petitioner- WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 2 of 12 husband to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to the OP-wife w.e.f. 13.09.2024 till disposal of the Civil Proceeding. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-
Legal Reasoning
husband has approached this Court in this writ petition. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr.Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the writ- petitioner has submitted that not only the OP-wife has not approached the Court with clean hands, but also has suppressed material facts before the Court concerned in securing an order enhancing the interim maintenance, however, the petitioner-husband is going on paying Rs.30,000/- per month to the OP-wife. Mr.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the OP-wife is an Income Tax assessee and the Income Tax return filed by her for the assessment year 2022-23 reveals her net salary per annum at Rs.19,31,923/- and her income from other sources at Rs.1,34,054/- per annum then and, therefore, the total income of the OP-wife comes around Rs.31,47,490/- per annum, but the OP-wife having suppressed her income is not entitled to any pendente lite maintenance. It is also submitted by Mr.Mishra that the WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 3 of 12 OP-wife is a high qualified lady having Master Degree in Industrial Relationship and Managing Human Resources from Warwick University, London 2010-12 and, therefore, the OP-wife having earning roughly around Rs.2,00,000/- per month is not entitled to any pendente lite maintenance, but the learned Judge Family Court ignoring all these facts has not only enhanced the pendente lite maintenance, but also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.75,000/- per month to the OP-wife by holding his income to be 7000 US Dollar. It is also argued that merely because the petitioner is earning income in US Dollar, he cannot be asked to pay the pendente lite maintenance by looking at his earning in Dollar since it is to be considered that the petitioner-husband also spends money in terms of US Dollar and, therefore, the sole criteria to award exorbitant maintenance in favour of the OP by merely looking at the earning of the petitioner in Dollar is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Further, Mr.Mishra while apprising the Court about posting of the Civil Proceeding to 16th July, 2025 for final disposal prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 4 of 12 3.1. On the other hand, Mr.Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel appearing for the OP-wife has submitted that the OP-wife is admittedly having some qualification, but she is having no income at present and thereby the learned Judge Family Court has rightly considered her case and awarded the pendente lite maintenance by enhancing the amount from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per month. Accordingly, Mr. Bose has prayed to dismiss
Decision
the writ petition. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about grant of pendente lite maintenance to the OP-wife @Rs.30,000/- per month, but the dispute between them boils down to the issue of enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner and OP are the wife and husband and they are fighting litigation for dissolution of their marriage which was solemnized way back in the year 2015. However, a careful perusal of the impugned order would go to disclose that the OP-wife was an Income Tax assessee and had submitted her IT returns up to the assessment year 2022-23, but thereafter no WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 5 of 12 document has been brought to the notice of the Court to evidence that the OP-wife has filed any Income Tax return. On the other hand, the income of the writ petitioner is never disputed and it is admitted to be 7000 US Dollar per month. Further, the order passed by the learned Judge Family Court granting interim maintenance to OP-wife @Rs.30,000/- per month which was not challenged by any of the parties, reveals about filing of disclosure affidavits by both the parties and it is stated therein that the OP-wife is a Master’s Degree holder in Arts and her monthly expenses is Rs.78,000/- per month and she is an unemployed, but the writ petitioner has stated in his disclosure affidavit that his educational qualification is B.Tech in Electronics and M.Sc. Finance and he is working as Vice President with Credit Suisse USA Service LLC 6933 Louis Stephen Drive since 21.08.2017 and getting 9166.66 US Dollars per month and his parents are dependent upon him. It has been stated in the initial order granting interim maintenance to OP-wife that the petitioner has filed a photocopy of an account statement of the OP-wife maintained with HDFC Bank which shows that a sum of Rs.1,06,419/- was WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 6 of 12 credited to the account of OP-wife under the head of “salary for the month of June, 2023”. Except this, nothing is forthcoming about the income of the OP-wife. It is, however, claimed by the petitioner-husband that the OP earns Rs.2,00,000/- per month, but that has not been substantiated before this Court in this writ petition. 5. The petitioner and OP are staying separately since 18.04.2018 as admitted, but law is fairly well settled that the husband has duty under law to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself; however, such maintenance must be commensurate to standard of living of the husband. Experience, however, shows that in a matrimonial proceeding, the parties tend to not disclose the true income, but the Court shall have the additional duty to grant relief which shall be fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed to. The Court’s approach should be to balance all relevant factors and in order to have an equitable determination of financial support required for the wife, it can be said that maintenance should be determined after considering the status and life style of the parties, their reasonable needs, educational WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 7 of 12 qualification of the wife, so also her earning capacity as well as financial standing and obligations of the husband to address the rising cost of the living and inflation to ensure the standard of living that is proportionate to the husband’s financial capacity and commensurate to the standard of his living and standard of living of his wife prior to separation. However, there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for fixing the amount, but the quantum of maintenance must be subjective to each case and is dependent on various circumstance and factors such as income of both the parties, their conduct during subsistence of marriage, their individual, social and financial status, their personal expense, their individual capacities and duties to maintain their dependents, the quality of life enjoyed by the wife during subsistence of marriage and such other similar factors. In this case, the writ petitioner has set up a plea that since OP-wife is having high qualification and earning, he should not be burdened with the liability to pay the maintenance to her, but the petitioner has never challenged the order granting interim maintenance @Rs.30,000/- per month to the OP- wife and only when the maintenance amount is WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 8 of 12 enhanced, the petitioner has risen from the slumber to challenge such order. It is also to be borne in mind that the “CP” case must have been disposed of or likely to be disposed of very shortly and the petitioner-husband has been asked to pay the interim maintenance at the enhanced rate w.e.f. 13.09.2024. Accepting for a moment the income of the OP-wife for the month of June, 2023 which is stated Rs.1,06,000/-, but the income of the writ petitioner is much higher and this Court is also conscious of the fact that since the petitioner stays abroad, he has to incur expenses in Dollars, but had the OP-wife lived together with the petitioner in abroad, she could have the right to enjoy not only the company of the petitioner- husband, but also would have right to enjoy the life commensurate to the standard of living of the petitioner- husband and would have spent her expenses in Dollars. The petitioner has of course relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in K.N. Vrs. R.G.; 2019 SCC Online Del 7704 to contend that the petitioner cannot claim the maintenance amount in terms of the currency of the earning of the husband, but fact remains that the wife’s requirement has to be considered on the basis of WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 9 of 12 cost of living as per the living standard of the parties in the country where the petitioner is employed. Further, the earning of the husband may not be considered in Dollars while awarding interim maintenance, but even then, we may consider that the writ petitioner can part 1000 Dollars in that country for the maintenance of wife and in that event, it would come around more than Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner, however, would not face much difficulty to share aforesaid amount for the maintenance of his wife for a temporary period till disposal of the Civil Proceeding which is likely to be disposed of shortly or would have been disposed of. 6. This Court strongly believes that law never appreciates those wives who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification, but in this case, there is no such material or document produced by the petitioner-husband to say that the OP-wife has intentionally remained idle to saddle the liability of paying maintenance to her husband and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had tacitly accepted the order granting interim maintenance WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 10 of 12 @Rs.30,000/- per month to OP-wife, and neither party has challenged the order granting interim maintenance to the OP-wife @Rs.30,000/- per month, however, subsequently the learned Judge Family Court has enhanced such maintenance in the midst of the trial. In this context, it is to be reminded that strict procedure of law is not applicable to maintenance proceeding because such proceedings are beneficial provision of law and aimed at providing social justice to the weaker spouse. It is not like that the writ petitioner is not capable to pay such amount, but it is his alter ego to withhold the amount of enhanced interim maintenance to OP-wife. In the admitted facts and circumstance and taking a holistic view, especially when the Civil Proceeding is likely to be disposed of or could have been disposed of and keeping in view the requirement and needs of the OP-wife in the present day market index and her right to be maintained commensurate standard of her husband and the admissibility of enhanced interim maintenance for a shorter duration for around nine months, this Court considers that interest of justice would be best served, if the interim maintenance is reduced to Rs.50,000/- per WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 11 of 12 month w.e.f. 13.09.2024 as ordered by the learned Judge Family Court. 7. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed in part on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the enhanced interim maintenance is reduced to Rs.50,000/- per month which is payable to the OP-wife w.e.f. 13.09.2024 till disposal of the Civil Proceeding in CP No. 289 of 2022. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st day of July,2025/Kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Jul-2025 14:06:26 WP(C) No.30905 of 2024 Page 12 of 12