Partly allowed

Bhavuk Mahindru v. Dristy Kapoor and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2024CRR(F)/91/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,500 per month to his wife and minor daughter. Relying on precedent that an able-bodied husband must maintain his wife and that a capable wife should contribute to her own livelihood, the High Court reduced total interim maintenance to Rs.5,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance reduced to Rs.5,000 per month total: Rs.3,500/month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.1,500/month to respondent No.2/minor daughter.

Bhavuk Mahindru Vs Dristy Kapoor and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

221 CRR-F-91-2024(O&M) Date of order: 18.10.2024

Bhavuk Mahindru

…..Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Drishty Kapoor & Another

¶7

…..Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Kumar Vishav Aggar w al, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocat e for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶11

Challenge in the present petition filed by the husband i s to the orde r dated 07.08.2023 passed by t he learned Additional Principal

¶12

Judge, Family Court, Patiala, whereby in a proceeding under Section 12 5 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been directed t o pay interim maintenance o f Rs.5,000/- p e r month to respondent No.1/ w ife and Rs.1,500/- per month t o respondent No.2/minor daughter from th e date of the application alon g with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advoca t e puts in appearance on behal f

¶14

of the respo n dents and files Vakalatnama, w hich is taken on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the p etitioner inter alia submits tha t in passing t h e impugned order, the learned Family Court has failed to tak e into accoun t the fact that the petitioner is only working as a professor o n ad hoc basi s in Modi College, Patiala on a salary of only Rs.13,000/- pe r

¶16

SUNENA month. In this regard, learned counsel refe r s to the Form No.16 (Annexur e 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

CRR-F-91-2024(O&M)

¶19

P6) wherei n total taxable annual inco m e of the petitioner for th e assessment y ear 2022-2023 is Rs.1,63,484. I t is submitted that as such, th e monthly inc o me of the petitioner comes to only about Rs.13,000/-. Of th e said amount, he has been directed to pay R s.6,500/- per month as interi m maintenanc e to the respondents. Moreov e r, the petitioner is living in a rented acco m modation and has therefore to pay the monthly rent. Th e petitioner is the only son and has to look after his widowed mother, he r medical exp e nses as also bear the monthl y house expenses. Besides this , the petition e r has also opened a Sukanya S amridhi Yojana with the Stat e Bank of In d ia on 14.12.2019 in the na m e of respondent No.2/mino r daughter in which the petitioner is payi n g Rs.1,500/- per month. It i s pertinent th a t the respondent No.1 is a pra c ticing Advocate. The petitione r has also file d a petition under Section 9 o f the Hindu Marriage Act, 195 5 (Annexure P 1). It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be se t aside/modified.

¶20

Per contra, learned coun s el for the respondents oppose s the prayer m ade on behalf of the petitione r and submits that no doubt th e respondent N o.1 is an LLM and is practicin g Advocate, however, father o f respondent No.1 is paralytic. As such, res p ondent No.1 has the full-tim e responsibilit y to look after her paralytic father and take care of hi s medication a nd medical expenses as ther e is no other sibling to do th e same. Mother of respondent No.1 is also an aged lady. The responden t No.1 is also s ingle-handedly looking after t h e 6-year-olddaughter who is i n

¶21

SUNENA 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

CRR-F-91-2024(O&M)

¶24

her care an d custody. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition b e

¶25

dismissed.

¶26

No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the parties.

¶27

I have heard learned cou n sel for the parties and peruse d

¶28

the case file in great detail.

¶29

Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r was married to respondent No.1 on 20.02.2 0 18. Respondent No.2 was bor n out of the w edlock on 25.12.2018. Due to m atrimonial discord, the partie s started living separately from 31.03.201 9 . Petition under Section 12 5 Cr.P.C. (Ann e xure P2) was filed by the respo n dents on 13.12.2019.

¶30

The admitted facts on r e cord are that the responden t No.1 is qualified professional having postgraduate degree of LLM; and th e petitioner is working as a professor ostensibly on ad hoc basis with salary o f only ₹13,00 0 /– per month. It has not been d enied by the respondents tha t the petitioner is depositing an amount o f Rs.1,500/- in the name o f respondent No.2 in the Sukanya Samridhi Y ojana. It may also be pointed out that in the impugned order it has b e en duly noted by the learned Family Cour t that as per the Income Tax R e turns of the petitioner for th e past three y e ars, his annual income is abou t Rs.2 lakh. As per Annexure P6 , his gross to t al income is shown to be Rs.2 , 13,484/- and his net income i s shown to be Rs.1,63,484/-. It has further be e n noted in the impugned orde r that although the respondent No.1 has ad m itted her qualification as LLM however, sh e is not working anywhere.

¶31

SUNENA 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

CRR-F-91-2024(O&M)

¶34

9. It is by now a settl e d trend that in matters o f maintenanc e such as the present one, the husband tries to depict hi s income on the lower side, whereas th e wife attempts to show a n exaggerated income of the husband. The t ruth usually lies somewhere i n between. In any event, these are all mat t ers of evidence. The truth o r otherwise o f the allegations and counter - allegations made by both th e parties can only be determined upon lea d ing of evidence. As such, it i s neither desi r able nor feasible for this Cou r t to interfere at this stage, le t alone return a finding in respect of the con t rary assertions made by eithe r of the partie s .

¶35

10. However, in view of the admitted relationship between the parties, the petitioner cannot be ab s olved of his moral and lega l responsibilit y of maintaining the responde n ts. In this regard judgment o f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan” (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 661024, is relevant wh e rein it is held as follows: –

¶36

“ B. Criminal Procedure Cod e , 1973 Section 125 Grant o f mai n tenance to wife - Plea of hus b and that he was not doing jo b and h ad no means to pay cannot b e accepted - These are only bal d excu s es - Held :-

¶37

(i) If the husband is he a lthy, able bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation t o support his wife.

¶38

(ii) It is the obligation of th e husband to maintain his wife - He cannot be permitted to ple a d that he is unable to maintai n the wife due to financial constr a ints as long as he is capable o f earning.”

¶39

Reference may also b e made to judgment of th e

¶40

Karnataka High Court in “ Smt. Shilpashree J. M. & Others

¶41

SUNENA 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

CRR-F-91-2024(O&M)

¶44

Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S. & Others”, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260157, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶45

“8. The records also disclosed t hat before marriage petitione r No.1 was working as is evident fr o m her cross examination. He r cros s examination also reveals that s he was residing along with he r mot h er. It is also evident from her admission that, even after he r dese r tion she continued to stay in t h e rented house along with he r mot h er itself and the allegation d o es establish that she was no t inte r ested to stay with respondent N os. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fac t that at the instance of the prese n t petitioner No. 1, a separat e hou s e was taken on rent and now t h e petitioners i.e., wife and chil d are r esiding therein along with her m other, but she was reluctant t o stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It i s an a d mitted fact that responden t No. 1- husband is runnin g prov i sion stores. Further, he is havin g responsibility of taking care o f his m other and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriag e and it is asserted that afte r mar r iage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation a s to why she is incapable of working now. She is not supposed to si t idle a nd seek entire maintenance fr o m her husband and she is als o lega l ly bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and sh e can s eek only supportive maintenan c e from her husband".

¶46

(Emphasis supplied )

¶47

Thus, keeping in view th e above noted legal position, a s

¶48

also the entire facts and circumstances of the present case including th e fact that th e respondent No.1 is LLM; that the petitioner appears to b e working as a professor on ad hoc basis with an annual income of about Rs. 2 lakh i.e. ab o ut Rs.13,000/- per month; tha t the petitioner has opened a n account in t h e name of respondent No.2 wi t h the Sukanya Samridhi Yojan a with State Bank of India from 14.12.20 1 9 in which he is depositin g Rs.1,500/- p e r month; present petition is partly allowed; and it is directe d

¶49

SUNENA 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

CRR-F-91-2024(O&M)

¶52

that the pe t itioner shall pay total interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- pe r month to th e respondents (Rs.3,500/- per m onth to respondent No.1/wif e and Rs.1,50 0 /- per month to respondent No . 2/minor child).

¶53

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶54

18.10.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶55

SUNENA 2024.10.23 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Bhavuk Mahindru v. Dristy Kapoor and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavuk Mahindru v. Dristy Kapoor and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Goel Vs Suman Rani and Anr.

Balwinder Singh Saggu Vs State of Punjab and Others

Digvijay Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Tejinderdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Vs State of Haryana

Kaasni Minor through Her Mother Vs Jitender Singh