High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ram Chandra Uttam, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it is undisputed that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 that on 17.4.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Couple was blessed with a male child, namely, Parth Sachan out of their wedlock. Subsequently, relations between the couple got strained and respondent no. 2 started living separately from the revisionist along with her minor son. Respondent no. 2 had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rites in the year, 2021, in which she had filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 26. the Family Court awarded Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 6.1.2023 as corrected vide order dated 10.1.2023. The present revisionist assailed that order by way of filing of First Appeal No. 531 of 2023 before this Court which was finally decided vide order dated 5.7.2023. and said amount of maintenance Rs. 40,000/- was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- per month subject to appellant allowing and her minor son to avail medical facilities under Aayushman CAPF Scheme of the Central Government to which they are entitled as family members of the appellant, he being an employee of the Central Government. The respondent no. 2 herself left him without his knowledge on

22.8.2021, without sufficient cause. He has next submitted that the minor son of the spouses is suffering from some serious ailments and is presently living with his mother and has been provided facility of Aayushman CAPF Scheme at the instance of the revisionist who is employed at I. T. B. P. Centre, Bengaluru. He has further submitted that before the trial Court this fact is proved that respondent no. 2 herself is earning member and is working as dentist in Community Health Centre in N. R. H. M. and since 2012 and earns more than Rs. 60,000/- per month which is liable to be enhanced due to annual increment. He submits that revisionist has filed his pay slips for the month of April, 2023 in which his monthly income is shown as Rs. 2,41,219/- and net salary has been shown as Rs. 1,71,481. he has also shown details of his expenses month wise through rejoinder affidavit dated 19.4.2024. He has lastly submitted that the impugned award is exorbitant as the mother is also serving as a doctor and draws substantial amount as salary. The respondent no. 2 has responsibility to maintain the child as he is residing with the mother. Revisionist is not even permitted to meet his son by his wife. The impugned order which is under challenge suffers from illegality as the trial Court has failed to appreciate the above factual aspect of the case. The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no. 2 has herself instituted proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and impugned order is passed without considering the liability of the revisionist as the mother and father of the revisionist remain ill and he has to bear their medical and other expenses also. No substantial grounds are shown in the impugned order while awarding exorbitant maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that it is admitted that the gross emoluments of the revisionist is Rs. 2,41219/- in April, 2023 and it must have increased within two years and since then as per the present net salary of the revisionist is Rs. 1,78,481/- and the amount of interim maintenance is Rs. 50,000/- is a fraction of net salary of the revisionist. The works in National Health Mission on contractual basis and works on fixed salary of Rs. 57000/- per month. She has to spend a big sum of money towards treatment of her ailing son. The revisionist is duty bound to maintain his wife and son, as his salaried income is many times more than that of his wife. He also submits that respondent no. 2 has taken housing loan 35,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- as car loan for which she has to part with a substantial share of her salaried income towards repayment of loan. Her son is suffering from serious ailment and she has to bear his medical expenses. He further submitted that the revisionist has been drawing Rs. 15,000/- initially and Rs. 27,000/- subsequently on annual basis towards educational expenses of his son from his department but did not provide any sum of money to respondent no. 2 for education of his son. He further submitted that it is clarified in the impugned order that any amount received by the revisionist in any other proceedings shall be liable to be adjustment, therefore, the total financial liability incurred by the revisionist is only Rs. 50,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive on the facts of the case. she has been ousted from her matrimonial home and is forced to reside in a rented house together with her son. The trial Court has observed in the impugned order that from the perusal of record it is admitted fact that both the parties are related as husband and wife and from documentary evidence it is obvious that both the parties are doctors by profession and they are drawing certain salary from their respective departments. The applicant has stated that she is a minor salaried employee and whatever she earns from her job, is not sufficient for maintenance of herself and her son as his son remains sick and she has to bear sufficient sum of money towards his treatment. Her husband earns huge sum of money as salary from his department and he is not bearing responsibility of his wife and son. He spends nothing towards their maintenance, therefore, it would be justified to fix a certain sum of money as interim maintenance, which is befitting to their dignified living and has awarded Rs. 50,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of order, i. e. 25.7.2023. The trial Court has taken a lenient view while making the order of interim maintenance effective from the date of order and not from the date of filing of application bearing date 23.2.2021. The law regarding maintenance is well settled that a person is under obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and minor son so that they could be able to lead a life which they are accustomed when they were living along with the person who is found liable to maintain them. If the wife is earning but her income is not sufficient enough to mete out her necessary expenses and those of a minor child dependent on her, she can still claim maintenance from her husband. A wife, even if living separately from her husband due to his fault, is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The provision of the maintenance is not meant to punish a neglectful spouse but to prevent flagrancy and ensure that the wife's basic needs are met. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Versus Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 laid down certain criteria for fixing quantum of maintenance which includes parties' status, applicant's needs and the respondent's income and property, the claimants liabilities and financial responsibility, the parties age and employment status, parties' residential arrangements, parties minor children maintenance and illness or disability. In Rajnesh Versus Neha, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for determination of maintenance. More importantly, it is decisively established that "if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband." The duty of the Court is to look at income she is earning and of it, and from that, determine whether or not she is capable of sustaining herself in the manner and life style to which she is accustomed in the husband's house. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean survival. In the present case, from the documents produced by the parties it is crystal clear that the earnings of the revisionists are far more than that of his wife / respondent no. 2. Apart from herself she has to take care of her minor son, who is admittedly ailing from some chronic disease, therefore, there is force in the stand of respondent no. 2 / wife that she has parted with a substantial sum of earning towards treatment of her son. She has stated that her husband did not provide her the sum received from the department towards educational expenses of his son. The trial Court has already placed a rider in the impugned order that any amount received by the applicant towards interim maintenance in any other proceedings, shall be liable to be adjusted, therefore, the revisionist has not to bear monthly expenses of more than Rs. 50,000/- in toto, towards maintenance of his wife and son. Consequently, I find not infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The amount of maintenance cannot be termed as exorbitant having regard to status and economic needs of the parties. The revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 HR HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ram Chandra Uttam, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it is undisputed that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 that on 17.4.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Couple was blessed with a male child, namely, Parth Sachan out of their wedlock. Subsequently, relations between the couple got strained and respondent no. 2 started living separately from the revisionist along with her minor son. Respondent no. 2 had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rites in the year, 2021, in which she had filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 26. the Family Court awarded Rs. 40,000/- vide order dated 6.1.2023 as corrected vide order dated 10.1.2023. The present revisionist assailed that order by way of filing of First Appeal No. 531 of 2023 before this Court which was finally decided vide order dated 5.7.2023. and said amount of maintenance Rs. 40,000/- was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- per month subject to appellant allowing and her minor son to avail medical facilities under Aayushman CAPF Scheme of the Central Government to which they are entitled as family members of the appellant, he being an employee of the Central Government. The respondent no. 2 herself left him without his knowledge on

22.8.2021, without sufficient cause. He has next submitted that the minor son of the spouses is suffering from some serious ailments and is presently living with his mother and has been provided facility of Aayushman CAPF Scheme at the instance of the revisionist who is employed at I. T. B. P. Centre, Bengaluru. He has further submitted that before the trial Court this fact is proved that respondent no. 2 herself is earning member and is working as dentist in Community Health Centre in N. R. H. M. and since 2012 and earns more than Rs. 60,000/- per month which is liable to be enhanced due to annual increment. He submits that revisionist has filed his pay slips for the month of April, 2023 in which his monthly income is shown as Rs. 2,41,219/- and net salary has been shown as Rs. 1,71,481. he has also shown details of his expenses month wise through rejoinder affidavit dated 19.4.2024. He has lastly submitted that the impugned award is exorbitant as the mother is also serving as a doctor and draws substantial amount as salary. The respondent no. 2 has responsibility to maintain the child as he is residing with the mother. Revisionist is not even permitted to meet his son by his wife. The impugned order which is under challenge suffers from illegality as the trial Court has failed to appreciate the above factual aspect of the case. The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no. 2 has herself instituted proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and impugned order is passed without considering the liability of the revisionist as the mother and father of the revisionist remain ill and he has to bear their medical and other expenses also. No substantial grounds are shown in the impugned order while awarding exorbitant maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that it is admitted that the gross emoluments of the revisionist is Rs. 2,41219/- in April, 2023 and it must have increased within two years and since then as per the present net salary of the revisionist is Rs. 1,78,481/- and the amount of interim maintenance is Rs. 50,000/- is a fraction of net salary of the revisionist. The works in National Health Mission on contractual basis and works on fixed salary of Rs. 57000/- per month. She has to spend a big sum of money towards treatment of her ailing son. The revisionist is duty bound to maintain his wife and son, as his salaried income is many times more than that of his wife. He also submits that respondent no. 2 has taken housing loan 35,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- as car loan for which she has to part with a substantial share of her salaried income towards repayment of loan. Her son is suffering from serious ailment and she has to bear his medical expenses. He further submitted that the revisionist has been drawing Rs. 15,000/- initially and Rs. 27,000/- subsequently on annual basis towards educational expenses of his son from his department but did not provide any sum of money to respondent no. 2 for education of his son. He further submitted that it is clarified in the impugned order that any amount received by the revisionist in any other proceedings shall be liable to be adjustment, therefore, the total financial liability incurred by the revisionist is only Rs. 50,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive on the facts of the case. she has been ousted from her matrimonial home and is forced to reside in a rented house together with her son. The trial Court has observed in the impugned order that from the perusal of record it is admitted fact that both the parties are related as husband and wife and from documentary evidence it is obvious that both the parties are doctors by profession and they are drawing certain salary from their respective departments. The applicant has stated that she is a minor salaried employee and whatever she earns from her job, is not sufficient for maintenance of herself and her son as his son remains sick and she has to bear sufficient sum of money towards his treatment. Her husband earns huge sum of money as salary from his department and he is not bearing responsibility of his wife and son. He spends nothing towards their maintenance, therefore, it would be justified to fix a certain sum of money as interim maintenance, which is befitting to their dignified living and has awarded Rs. 50,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of order, i. e. 25.7.2023. The trial Court has taken a lenient view while making the order of interim maintenance effective from the date of order and not from the date of filing of application bearing date 23.2.2021. The law regarding maintenance is well settled that a person is under obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and minor son so that they could be able to lead a life which they are accustomed when they were living along with the person who is found liable to maintain them. If the wife is earning but her income is not sufficient enough to mete out her necessary expenses and those of a minor child dependent on her, she can still claim maintenance from her husband. A wife, even if living separately from her husband due to his fault, is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The provision of the maintenance is not meant to punish a neglectful spouse but to prevent flagrancy and ensure that the wife's basic needs are met. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Versus Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 laid down certain criteria for fixing quantum of maintenance which includes parties' status, applicant's needs and the respondent's income and property, the claimants liabilities and financial responsibility, the parties age and employment status, parties' residential arrangements, parties minor children maintenance and illness or disability. In Rajnesh Versus Neha, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for determination of maintenance. More importantly, it is decisively established that "if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband." The duty of the Court is to look at income she is earning and of it, and from that, determine whether or not she is capable of sustaining herself in the manner and life style to which she is accustomed in the husband's house. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean survival. In the present case, from the documents produced by the parties it is crystal clear that the earnings of the revisionists are far more than that of his wife / respondent no. 2. Apart from herself she has to take care of her minor son, who is admittedly ailing from some chronic disease, therefore, there is force in the stand of respondent no. 2 / wife that she has parted with a substantial sum of earning towards treatment of her son. She has stated that her husband did not provide her the sum received from the department towards educational expenses of his son. The trial Court has already placed a rider in the impugned order that any amount received by the applicant towards interim maintenance in any other proceedings, shall be liable to be adjusted, therefore, the revisionist has not to bear monthly expenses of more than Rs. 50,000/- in toto, towards maintenance of his wife and son. Consequently, I find not infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The amount of maintenance cannot be termed as exorbitant having regard to status and economic needs of the parties. The revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 HR HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad