maintenance to the wife is now fairly settled. The Apex Court in
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has
held thus :
“The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay
having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own
maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law
and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions.
The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be
such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering
her status and the mode of life she was used to when
she lived with her husband and also that she does not
feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the
same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate.”
6. Recently, the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
Meena [(2015) 6 SCC 353], while dealing with the issue of
maintenance to the wife made following observations :
“Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was
conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the
provision so that some suitable arrangements can
be made by the Court and she can sustain herself
and also her children if they are with her. The
concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be
thrown away from grace and roam for her basic
maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law
to lead a life in the similar manner as she would
have lived in the house of her husband. That is
where the status and strata come into play, and that
is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a
wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of
this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to
deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.
Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time
of marriage and also in consonance with the
statutory law that governs the field, it is the
obligation of the husband to see that the wife does
not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not
to be maladroitly created whereunder she is
compelled to resign to her fate and think of life
“dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact,
it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to earn
money with physical labour, if he is able bodied.
There is no escape route unless there is an order
from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get
maintenance from the husband on any legally
permissible grounds.”
What is
required to be seen is that the status of the parties, their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having
regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and
of those he is obliged under the law. Undoubtedly, the
documents relied upon by the Petitioner-wife show very strong
financial capacity of the Respondent which could not have been
ignored by the family Court while considering the grant of interim
maintenance. Even assuming for the sake of moment, income
tax returns of the Petitioner wife disclose that she is having
independent source of income, the same is not commensurate
with that of the husband. The Petitioner wife is entitled to lead
the standard of life similar to that of the husband.
18. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case into consideration especially the deposits and withdrawals
of amounts by the Respondent as disclosed from the bank
statement and debit card statements and statement made by the
Respondent in his reply in the DV Act proceedings, in my opinion,
the ends of justice would be met if the Respondent is directed to
pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance @ Rs.1 lac per month
from the date of the impugned order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8825 OF 2014
Mrs. Amee Sharan Desai,
Versus
Mr. Sharan Sanjeev Desai,
Coram : RANJIT MORE, J.
Dated : 23rd August, 2016.
1. This writ petition arises from an interim
maintenance proceedings under section 18 of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By the application at
Exhibit-17 filed in MJ Petition No.C-4 of 2013, the Petitioner–wife
claimed interim maintenance @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month for
herself and @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter of
the couple. By the order impugned in the petition, the Family
Court, Mumbai at Bandra has refused to grant any interim
maintenance to the Petitioner–wife, however, daughter of the
couple is granted interim maintenance @Rs15,000/- per month.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the Petitioner and the
Respondent got married on 25th November 2005. During the
wedlock, on 31st December 2008 daughter Samara was born to
Petitioner and Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that on
15th November 2012 she was constrained to leave her
matrimonial home and come to reside at Mumbai with her
mother. The Petitioner thereafter on 30th November 2012 filed a
petition being MJ Petition No.C-04 of 2013 in the family Court
seeking maintenance for herself and daughter–Samara and
permanent custody of Samara. On 27th December 2012 the
Petitioner also filed a proceeding under sections 12, 18, 20, 22
and 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 40th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai being CC
No.637/SS/2012, [hereinafter referred to as “DV Act
proceedings”]. It is the case of the Petitioner that in this DV Act
proceedings, the Respondent by filing reply showed his
willingness to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.50,000/- per
month towards the interim maintenance in addition to the
payment of rent for separate residence and for any unforseen
expenses of Samara and / or the Petitioner. The Petitioner was,
however, advised to withdraw the DV Act proceedings and
accordingly she withdrew the same on 26th August 2013 and
thereafter on 8th October 2013 in MJ Petition No. C-04 of 2013,
filed an application at Exhibit-17 seeking interim maintenance for
herself @ Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. and for daughter Samara
@Rs.1,50,000/- p.m.. The Family Court granted interim
maintenance to daughter – Samara @ Rs.15,000/- per month but
interim maintenance to the Petitioner – wife is refused on the
ground that she has independent source of income. This order is
challenged by filing present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
3. The Petitioner–wife contends that she has no
independent source of income. The business which is shown to
be carried on by her is in fact that of her mother. At any rate, the
Income Tax Returns which are relied upon by the Respondent
and Family Court reflect very meagre purported income of the
Respondent which is not at all commensurate with the status of
the parties and is not sufficient to lead the standard of living to
which parties were accustomed during their cohabitation. It was
also contended that income referred to in the Income Tax
Returns of the Petitioner is in fact the income of the Petitioner's
mother, the small portion of which was deposited in a joint
account held by the Petitioner and her mother. It is contended
that the said money / income has not been used by the Petitioner
at all and the record reveals that the amount in the said bank
account is withdrawn by the Petitioner's mother. The Petitioner
also contended that the Respondent suppressed his income. The
documents relied upon before the Family Court and this Court
demonstrate that the Respondent has significant income. It also
discloses the high spending power and high standard of living of
the parties during the time of their cohabitation. The Petitioner
contended that taking into consideration the high income and
high spending power of the Respondent, coupled with the
lifestyle which parties led during their cohabitation, she is
entitled to interim maintenance @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month. So
far as daughter–Samara is concerned, she is taking education in
Mumbai in highly reputed school. The Petitioner has given chart
of expenses for daughter Samara under various heads. Based on
the details of expenses given in the said chart, the Petitioner
claims interim maintenance for Samara @ Rs.1,50,000/- per
month.
4. Mrs. Manjula Rao, the learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent very vehemently contested the petition. She
submitted that the Petitioner wife has independent source of
income and this fact was concealed by the Petitioner from the
Family Court while claiming interim maintenance. She submitted
that the business and properties which are being referred to by
the Petitioner as a source of income for the Respondent, in fact
belong to the Respondent's father and brother. She also
submitted that there was no justification for the Petitioner wife to
withdraw from the company of Respondent and therefore she is
not entitled for any maintenance much less the interim
maintenance. She submitted that Family Court has rightly
refused maintenance to the Petitioner wife. She also referred to
various documents annexed to the petition and the Respondent's
reply to buttress her contentions. She lastly submitted that this
Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not expected to interfere
with the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. The law regarding grant and quantum of
maintenance to the wife is now fairly settled. The Apex Court in
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has
held thus :
“The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay
having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own
maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law
and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions.
The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be
such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering
her status and the mode of life she was used to when
she lived with her husband and also that she does not
feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the
same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate.”
6. Recently, the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
Meena [(2015) 6 SCC 353], while dealing with the issue of
maintenance to the wife made following observations :
“Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was
conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her
matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the
provision so that some suitable arrangements can
be made by the Court and she can sustain herself
and also her children if they are with her. The
concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be
thrown away from grace and roam for her basic
maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law
to lead a life in the similar manner as she would
have lived in the house of her husband. That is
where the status and strata come into play, and that
is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a
wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of
this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to
deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.
Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time
of marriage and also in consonance with the
statutory law that governs the field, it is the
obligation of the husband to see that the wife does
not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not
to be maladroitly created whereunder she is
compelled to resign to her fate and think of life
“dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact,
it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to earn
money with physical labour, if he is able bodied.
There is no escape route unless there is an order
from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get
maintenance from the husband on any legally
permissible grounds.”
7. In the light of above principles laid down by the
Apex Court, let us consider the rival submissions of the parties in
the present case. The Petitioner heavily relied upon the reply
affidavit filed by the Respondent–husband in the DV Act
proceedings. The Petitioner-wife contends that though in this
reply affidavit the Respondent has shown his income of
Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,74,615/- and Rs.1,40,626/- respectively for the
financial years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the very affidavit
he has expressly shown his willingness to pay to the Petitioner an
amount of Rs.50,000/- per month for her maintenance over and
above the rental charges for the alternate accommodation and
for any other unforseen and/or unexpected expenditure required
to be borne for the Petitioner or daughter Samara. According to
the Petitioner, the statement itself shows that the income
disclosed by the Respondent was patently false. The Petitioner
also contended that the Respondent is co-owner of the ancestral
property worth hundreds of crores. She submitted that the
Respondent though held 4 to 5 bank accounts, has disclosed only
one and the statement of the disclosed account reveal that there
have been huge deposits and withdrawals. The Petitioner wife
also contended that the Respondent holds 4 to 5 debit / credit
cards but he has disclosed only one debit card and the disclosed
debit card itself shows that the Respondent is making payments
to the tune of several lakhs on routine basis. She also relied
upon the lifestyle she enjoyed with the Respondent during
cohabitation. She submitted that they on many occasions
undertook foreign tours, travelled by business class and stayed
only in 5 star hotels. The Respondent, on the contrary, relied
upon the Income Tax Returns of the Petitioner which according to
him disclose that the Petitioner has independent income. As
discussed earlier, the Respondent also contended that the
property and business on which the Petitioner relied, are
ancestral property and business is of his father which cannot be
considered as his independent source of income at this stage of
grant of interim maintenance.
8. At Exhibit-B to the petition, the Petitioner has
annexed Respondent's reply in the DV Act proceedings. In
paragraph 13(ii) and 13(iii) of his reply, the Respondent has made
following averments :
“(ii) In response to prayer (b) of the Applicant, seeking
residential orders under section 19(f) of the D. V. Act 2005
the Respondent submits that this prayer of the Applicant
has to be taken into consideration in the light the suit
which the Respondent has filed against the Applicant in
the Family Court at New Delhi seeking conjugal rights.
Subject to participation in the said proceeding by the
Applicant if the said Court passes an order directing such
restitution of conjugal rights between the Applicant and
the Respondent, then the Applicant would be obliged to
returned to her matrimonial home at New Delhi, in which
case the Applicant would be treated as sufficiently secure
having the same level of accommodation which the
Respondent presently enjoys. The Respondent says and
submits that he being a resident of Delhi, in the event of
the Applicant not being ready and willing to return to her
matrimonial home, and insist upon an alternate
accommodation on rent, the Respondent is ready and
willing to provide the same to the Applicant in New Delhi.
(iii) In response to prayer (c) of the Applicant,
seeking monetary relief under section 20(1)(b)(d) and
20(2) and section 20(3) of the D. V. Act 2005, the
Respondent denies that the Applicant has been subjected
to any expense or loss suffered in monetary terms. The
Respondent submits that he is ready and willing to
provide to the Applicant and his minor daughter,
adequate monetary relief in the form of maintenance per
month consistent with the standard of his income. The
Respondent submits that he is aware that the said
monetary relief in the form of maintenance per month
should be adequate, fair and reasonable. However, the
same is required to be consistent with the income of the
Respondent. The Respondent submits that taking into
consideration his income generated from his business,
and also taking into consideration that the Respondent
has willingly agreed to accept the Applicant back into her
matrimonial home in New Delhi, or in the alternative
provide her with alternative accommodation on rent in
New Delhi, for which the Respondent will be required to
pay not only a deposit but also pay the monthly rent to
the landlord of the said premises, the Respondent is ready
and willing to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Applicant
per month which he shall deposit directly into her bank
account as desired by the Applicant. The Respondent in
all fairness, places on record that apart from the said
maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month, in the event of any
untoward, unforseen and unexpected expenditure is
required to be incurred by the Applicant, either towards
her or his daughter's medical expenses, he is ready and
willing to pay the same as and when the circumstances so
requires. The Respondent submits that the expected
claim of the Applicant that the maintenance should be
consistent with the standard of living that the Respondent
enjoys cannot be become the base for fixing the said
maintenance inasmuch as the Respondent is personally
liable and responsible to maintain his wife and child and
cannot expect the said burden to be borne by his parents
and other family members. The Respondent submits that
since he does not have a household of his own, he lives in
the house of his parents, with his brother and family. The
business wherefrom the Respondent generates his
income is different and distinct from that of his father.
Consequently the offer of Rs.50,000/- per month made by
the Respondent is in the light of his financial capabilities
based on his annual income. The Respondent submits
that the monetary relief of Rs.2,50,000/- per month as
claimed by the Applicant for herself and Rs.1,50,000/- per
month for their minor daughter is not only exorbitant but
beyond the reach and means of the Respondent. The
Respondent submits that such exorbitant figures have
been deliberately demanded by the Applicant only to
exert pressure on the Respondent to succumb to her
extortive demands. The Respondent submits that the
filing of a complaint on 1st March 2013 and pursuing the
same with resourceful connection of the Applicant's
family amongst high ranking police officials to ensure
registration of an FIR against the Respondent and his
parents is nothing but an attempt by the Applicant to
pressurise the Respondent to succumb to her demands as
expressed in her application under reply.”
9. The above averments made in the reply affidavit by
the Respondent, prima facie, in my opinion, do show that the
Respondent has suppressed his real income. The averments
make it clear that the said offer towards maintenance was made
by the Respondent in the light of his financial capacity, based on
his annual income. The Respondent not only showed willingness
to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month
towards the maintenance but also agreed to bear rental charges
for the alternate accommodation and pay for any untoward,
unforseen and unexpected expenditure of the Petitioner and
daughter Samara. The Respondent in this regard claimed that
this offer was made with a view to continue the marriage and
since he was not aware about the independent source of income
of the Petitioner. It was also contended that offer for payment of
rental charges for alternate accommodation for the Petitioner
was an offer for the accommodation at New Delhi and not in
Mumbai. This submission, I find is without any substance. What
is required to be considered is that the status of the parties and
their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having
regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance. The
offer of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance and offer of alternate
accommodation, may be at New Delhi, do reveal strong financial
position of the Respondent.
10. The documents annexed at page nos. 103 to 112 are
the statements of Bank Account No.04841600000236 of HDFC
Bank, Sundar Nagar, Delhi held by the Respondent. The
Petitioner has made summary of these statements and annexed
at Annexure-I to the written submissions. The summary shows
that during the financial year 2007-08 the Respondent deposited
Rs.13,75,000/- in this bank account and withdrew Rs.10,22,942/-
from this bank account, during the financial year 2008–09, the
Respondent deposited Rs.5,15,000/- and withdrew Rs.5,67,400/-
from this bank account, during the financial year 2009–10, the
Respondent deposited Rs.55,27,353/- and withdrew
Rs.26,46,440/- from this bank account, during the financial year
2010–11, the Respondent deposited Rs.7,36,595/- and withdrew
Rs.20,51,653/- from this bank account, during the financial year
2011–12, the Respondent deposited Rs.7,41,178/- and withdrew
Rs.21,00,000/- from this bank account and during the financial
year 2012–13, the Respondent deposited Rs.27,96,679/- and
withdrew Rs.28,73,000/- from this bank account. Contents of
bank statement at page 108 show that the Respondent has paid
an amount of Rs. 2 lakh towards income tax installation. This
statement also shows that the Petitioner holds 4 debit / credit
cards. These statements reflect huge deposits and withdrawals
of several lakhs of rupees by the Respondent.
11. Page 102 is the tax invoice for purchase of the cut
and polished diamonds issued by AMC Diamonds India Pvt Ltd in
the name of the Respondent, which goes to show that the
Respondent has purchased diamonds worth Rs.7,44,000/- on 30th
October 2009. Statement at page 109 shows that the Respondent
has spent approximately Rs.1 lakh while he was on vacation with
his friends at Macau during the span of two days between 8th
October 2010 to 9th October 2010.
12. The Petitioner has also relied upon the credit card
statement at page Nos.113 to 195 of the Respondent's Citi Bank
Credit Card. The summary of the statements is annexed at
annexure-II to the written submissions of the Petitioner. During
the financial year 2007-08, purchases worth Rs.2,75,457/- and
payments to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- were made by the
Respondent, during the financial year 2008-09, the Respondent
made purchases worth Rs.5,38,208/- and payments to the tune of
Rs.1,88,500/-, during the financial year 2009-10, the Respondent
made purchases worth Rs.4,11,562/- and payments to the tune of
Rs.5,62,000/-, during the financial year 2010-11, the Respondent
made purchases worth Rs. 8,19,889/- and payments to the tune
of Rs.9,82,000/-, during the financial year 2011-12, the
Respondent made purchases worth Rs.11,20,362/- and payments
to the tune of Rs.11,25,306/-, during the financial year 2012-13,
the Respondent made purchases worth Rs.3,30,659/- and
payments to the tune of Rs.4,31,500/- and during the financial
year 2013-14, the Respondent made purchases worth
Rs.1,11,949/- and payments to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/-. The
expenses in Citi Bank Credit Card statement reflect that the
Petitioner and the Respondent enjoyed a very high standard of
living and stayed only in the finest five star hotels, travelled
business class and shopped at high end boutiques. It further
reveals that the Petitioner and the Respondent frequently
travelled domestically and stayed only at five star hotels. It also
reveals that they travelled only in business class or first class.
Reference needs to be made to the photocopy of the passport of
the Respondent at page Nos.319 to 350. This passport and visa
stamp thereon show that the Respondent routinely took foreign
trips and has gone on foreign holidays.
13. The averments of the Respondent made in the reply
to DV Act proceedings coupled with the bank statements and
credit card statements as well as document regarding hotel stay
and purchase voucher demonstrate significant income, high
spending power and high standard of living of the parties during
their cohabitation. The parties are from the highest strata of the
society and have enjoyed status as such.
14. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner was
running the business carried on by her mother and relied upon
the Petitioner's income tax returns for this purpose. It is however
case of the Petitioner that business is owned by her mother and
purported income referred to is in fact income of her mother, a
small portion of which was deposited in a joint account held by
the Petitioner and her mother. The Petitioner in this regard
during the course of argument handed over compilation of
cheques to support her contention that bank account is managed
by her mother. The compilation shows that out of 83 cheques
issued from the said income from the joint account, only four
cheques have been signed by the Petitioner in a period spanning
over 8-9 years. Prima facie, I find substance in the Petitioner's
contention that the said business is owned by the Petitioner's
mother. In any case, income shown in the Petitioner's income
tax returns reflect very meagre income which in no way
commensurate with the status and standard of living of the
parties during their cohabitation.
15. The Respondent in his written submissions has
explained some of the entries in his bank statements and credit
card statements. It is the submission of the Respondent that an
amount of Rs.52 lakh is received at the time of one time sale of
the property and therefore it cannot be considered as his income.
With regard to diamond ring, he has submitted that it was in fact
purchased for the Petitioner–wife. It is also case of the
Respondent that some of the expenses referred to in the said
statements are incurred for the Petitioner-wife. It is stated that
monies were expended when foreign tours were undertaken by
both Petitioner and Respondent. This explanation, in my view,
however does not take the Respondent's case any further. The
fact remains that the Petitioner while living with the Respondent
was leading high standard of life.
16. It is also contended by the Respondent that the
Petitioner-wife has deserted the Respondent without any
justification and her acts amount to cruelty and therefore she is
not entitled to maintenance. The Respondent in this regard relies
upon various decisions of the Apex Court. On the contrary, it is
the case of the Petitioner that she was constrained to leave the
matrimonial home due to cruelty caused by her by the
Respondent and in her laws. In any case, what I find is that this
issue was not raised before the Family Court. The Respondent
opposed the application before the family Court on the ground
that the Petitioner has independent source of income which she
has concealed. The trial Court also accepted the Respondent's
contention that the Petitioner has independent source of income
and on that ground refused to grant interim maintenance to the
Petitioner. Whether the Petitioner was justified in withdrawing
from the the Respondent's company or which party is guilty of
cruelty will have to be decided at the final stage of the
proceedings before the family Court after giving an opportunity
to the parties to lead evidence.
17. The trial Court in paragraph 20 of the impugned
order has held that voluminous documents relied upon by the
Petitioner–wife with respect to the value of property worth
multiple crores cannot be considered at this interim stage as they
are not shown to be generating income. It was also observed by
the family Court that documents relied upon by the Petitioner
wife namely Credit Card Statements of the Respondent which
show considerably high lifestyle apparently enjoyed by the
Respondent are not relevant. It is further observed that list of
holidays taken by the Petitioner and the Respondent abroad
including the boarding passes of those flights and passports, bills
of various 5 star hotel, and bank statements of the Respondent
are not relevant for the purpose of ordering interim maintenance
to the Petitioner and her minor daughter. In my considered view,
the approach adopted by the Family Court is erroneous. What is
required to be seen is that the status of the parties, their
respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having
regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and
of those he is obliged under the law. Undoubtedly, the
documents relied upon by the Petitioner-wife show very strong
financial capacity of the Respondent which could not have been
ignored by the family Court while considering the grant of interim
maintenance. Even assuming for the sake of moment, income
tax returns of the Petitioner wife disclose that she is having
independent source of income, the same is not commensurate
with that of the husband. The Petitioner wife is entitled to lead
the standard of life similar to that of the husband.
18. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case into consideration especially the deposits and withdrawals
of amounts by the Respondent as disclosed from the bank
statement and debit card statements and statement made by the
Respondent in his reply in the DV Act proceedings, in my opinion,
the ends of justice would be met if the Respondent is directed to
pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance @ Rs.1 lac per month
from the date of the impugned order.
19. So far as the interim maintenance to daughter –
Samara is concerned, the family Court has granted it @
Rs.15,000/- per month. The record reveals that she is taking
education in very reputed school in South Mumbai. The Petitioner
wife has submitted the Chart of Expenses towards the education
of Samara. On the basis of the same she is claiming interim
maintenance @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month. I am however of the
opinion that taking into consideration the lifestyle of the parties
and standard of education which Samara is taking, the amount of
interim maintenance should be fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month.
20. In the light of above discussion, writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
Respondent is directed to pay during the pendency and till he
disposal of main MJ petition, interim maintenance to the
Petitioner - wife @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month and to daughter –
Samra @ Rs.25,000/- per month. Interim maintenance shall be
paid from the date of order impugned in this petition, i.e., 11th
April 2014. The Respondent shall pay arrears of interim
maintenance within eight weeks from today and shall pay regular
interim maintenance on or before 10th day of each month.
21. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, civil
applications if any, will not survive for consideration and the
same are also disposed of.
[RANJIT MORE, J.]
At this stage, Mrs. Rao seeks stay of this order in
order to enable the Respondent to approach the Apex Court.
Since this Court has granted eight weeks' time to the Respondent
to pay the arrears of interim maintenance, this request is
rejected.
[RANJIT MORE, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment