Dismissed

Aditya Padera v. Advaita

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Dec 2023FAO(FC)/13/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a lower court order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/month to a minor daughter. Upholding the order, the court held that the mother's income was insufficient to maintain the child at the family's previous standard, while investments by the father are for future corpus, not immediate sustenance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent-daughter is upheld and appeal is dismissed.

Aditya Padera Vs Advaita — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

FAO(FC) No. 13 of 2021 Date of Decision: 12.12.2023

¶3

_____________________________ Dr. Aditya Padera	________________________________________ ……...Appe Versus
Advaita

¶4

……...Appellant Versus

¶5

…....Respondent

¶6

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Appellant: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

¶9

___________________________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)

¶10

Instant appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, lays challenge to order dated 23.1.2021, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No. 363 of 2020 titled Advaita v. Dr. Aditya Padera , whereby court below while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.PC, filed by the respondent-daughter, proceeded to award sum of Rs. 20,000/- as interim maintenance.

¶11

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent-daughter, who at present is compelled to reside with her mother at Una, on account of matrimonial discord inter-se her parents, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, for grant of interim

¶12

¶13

maintenance. In the application, respondent-daughter averred that prior to matrimonial discord inter-se her parents, she was studying at G.D. Goenka Public School, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and at that time, annual charges of that school amounting to Rs. 161400/- were being paid by the appellant-father, however, on account of separation interse her parents, she is living with her mother at Una and studying in J.S. Wisdom World School Una, annual charges whereof are about Rs. 1,15,000/-pa. Respondent-daughter submitted that being father, appellant is duty bound to maintain her but on account of non-payment of any kind of maintenance, she is being neglected willfully and deliberately by the appellant-father.

¶14

3. Respondent-daughter also claimed in the application that she has no means to maintaine herself and as such, appellant-father be directed to pay her interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition filed by her under Section 125 Cr.PC. Respondent-daughter further stated in the application that appellant-father is a dental Surgeon employed in Government Civil Hospital Kangra and his salary is more than Rs. 1,08,000/- per month and as such, she, being dependent upon her farther, is entitled to get interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/per month.

¶15

¶16

4. Pursuant to notice issued in the aforesaid application, appellant-father filed detailed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that facts as have been noticed herein above are not in dispute. Claim put forth by the respondent-daughter was sought to be defeated on the ground that mother of the respondent-daughter has sufficient means to maintain herself as well as daughter. While admitting herself to be dental Surgeon, appellant-father also denied that he is in receipt of salary of Rs. 1,08,000/-. While admitting that before separation, respondent-daughter was studying at G.D. Goenka Public School, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, appellant-father claimed that fee of the school has been overvalued. He states that he has no knowledge regarding the school in which respondent-daughter is presently studying and due to spread of COVID-19, respondent-daughter was to pay the tuition fee only till further orders of the Government. He also denied that respondent-daughter is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month, especially, the expenses mentioned in sub paras (i) to (v) being overvalued. He also submitted that salary of mother of respondent-daughter is Rs. 75,332/- after deductions and as such, she alone can maintain the child and in case, she refuses to maintain her, he would welcome the respondent-daughter with open arms. With a view to prove his bonafide and love and affection towards the respondent-daughter, appellant-father also submitted that he is taken one

¶17

¶18

Life Insurance Policy from ICICI prudential in the name of respondentdaughter with sum assured Rs. 10,00,000/- with yearly premium amount of Rs. 1,01,000/-. He also submitted that he has also taken another policy with sum assured as Rs. 6,00,000/- by paying monthly installment of Rs. 5000/-. Apart from above, he has also taken one Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of the respondent-daughter.

¶19

5. Learned court below having taken note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties allowed the application and directed the appellant-father to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance vide impugned order dated 23.1.2021.

¶20

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order, appellant-father has approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order.

¶21

7. Precisely the grouse of the appellant-father as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-father, is that court below while passing impugned order miserably failed to take note of the fact that mother of the respondent-daughter, with whom she lives, has sufficient income to maintain herself as well as her daughter. Mr. Bahrdwaj, further submitted that court below without there being cogent and convincing evidence proceeded to accept the contention of the

¶22

¶23

respondent-daughter that his father being Dental Surgeon is in receipt of salary to the tune of RS. 1,08,000/- per month. He submitted that since no documentary evidence was ever led on record qua the annual charges of the school at Una, coupled with the fact that appellant-father had invested substantial amount in the bank in the name of his daughter in the shape of Insurance and Fixed Deposit, court below ought not have awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- which is on higher side.

¶24

8. To the contrary, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-daughter, supported the impugned order. While making this court peruse pleadings adduced on record especially, reply filed by the appellant-father, Mr. Chauhan, argued that at no point of time, appellant-husband specifically denied factum with regard to his salary to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/-. He also submitted that appellantfather nowhere disputed the standard of living, which respondent daughter was used to prior to separation of her parents. Since appellant-father was paying sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- as annual charges of the school at Dharamshala, coupled with the fact that respondent-daughter is still pursuing her studies in a Convent school at Una, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while ordering interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶25

¶26

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings adduced on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. Admittedly, on account of matrimonial discord inter-se parents of the respondent-daughter, she is compelled to reside with her mother at Una. It is also not in dispute that prior to separation of her parents, respondent-daughter was living with her parents at Dharamshala and her entire school expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,61,400/- were being paid by the appellant-father.

¶27

10. Respondent-daughter specifically pleaded in her application that annual charges of her school at Una are about Rs.1,15,000/-and apart from aforesaid amount, she also requires substantial amount to sustain herself. No doubt, mother of the respondent-daughter is also a doctor, but as per own case of the appellant father, she is in receipt of Rs. 75,332 /- pm, after deduction, which amount otherwise, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be sufficient for sustenance of mother and daughter especially keeping in view the standard of living, which respondentdaughter was used to prior to matrimonial discord inter-se her parents. Mere non-placing of photographs of the school could not be a reason to disbelieve the version put forth by the respondent-daughter, especially when appellant-father nowhere disputed factum with regard to annual

¶28

¶29

charges to the tune of Rs. 1,61,400/- paid by him in a School at Dharamshala. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that now a days, substantial admission fee, apart from other miscellaneous expenses is charged by the private/convent schools. On account of separation, mother of the respondent-daughter is compelled to live separately at Una along with her daughter and certainly for that purpose, she is required to spend substantial amount on accommodation, electricity, water, food and clothing etc. If mother of the respondent-daughter alone is called upon to maintain the respondent-daughter, she along with her minor daughter would be compelled to live a hard life, to which admittedly, respondent daughter is not used to on account of status of her parents. Otherwise also, sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the court below as interim maintenance cannot be said to be sufficient to maintain the respondent-daughter, rather over and above aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- amount required for other necessities and requirements of the respondent-daughter is otherwise borne by the mother.

¶30

11. Leaving everything aside, it is a duty of a father to maintain his child till the time he/she attains the majority. Amount, if any, invested in Insurance and Bank by the appellant-father may not be of much relevance as far as adjudication of the present proceedings is concerned because admittedly, amount invested in the insurance and bank, if any, shall be

¶31

¶32

received by the respondent-daughter in future whereas she needs money at this juncture for continuation of her studies as well as other expenses.

¶33

12. Moreover, this Court finds that sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent-daughter as interim maintenance during the pendency of the main proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.PC. In case, court below while deciding the main petition finds merit in the contention of the appellant-father, It will not only reduce the amount, but amount given as interim maintenance shall also be adjusted toward the amount, if any, awarded in the main proceedings.

¶34

13. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of pleadings as well as other material available on record and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present appeal fails and dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶35

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge

¶36

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶37

December 12, 2023 (manjit)

Aditya Padera v. Advaita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Padera v. Advaita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Pal Vs State of Hp

Jagat Singh Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Moni Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dev Ashish Bhatacharya Vs Rachna Gupta

Om Prakash Vs Hrtc and Others

Desh Raj Vs State of Hp