ABSTRACT

The given judgment is related to petition which raises a question concerning the

interim maintenance to petitioner Rupali Gupta (wife of Rajat Gupta) who is Chartered

Accountant by profession. She is seeking issuance against the Family courts verdict

denying interim maintenance to her considering her qualifications and supposed

financial independence. Adv. Mr.Ankur Mahindro appeared on behalf of respondent i.e.

Rajat Gupta and Adv. Mr.Anirudh Mudgal appeared on behalf of petitioner. The

judgment of Delhi High court is delivered by coram comprises of Justice Pratibha

Rani and Justice Pradeep Nandrajog.

 JUDGMENT REVIEW

STATEMENTS OF FACTS:

The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated September 06, 2014 whereby learned

Judge Family Court awarded a sum of 22,900/- per month towards maintenance to the two

children of the parties but declined to award interim maintenance to her as she is a qualified

Chartered Accountant having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is admitted case of the

parties that they got married on July 16, 2005 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu Rites and

Ceremonies. They are having two children. Elder one is a son born on March 04, 2006 and

younger one is a daughter born on March 12, 2008. They were living together till August 23,

2013.

The woman is a CA while her husband is an Electrical Engineer but runs his own

business. After the filing of divorce petition by the husband, the wife filed an application

seeking interim maintenance for a sum of 3 lakh per month for herself and the and the two

children and Rs. 1.1lakh as litigation expenses.

The impugned order has been challenged by the appellant/wife mainly on the ground

that her income prior to separation has been wrongly taken into account and the view taken

about her monthly income to be not less than 40,000/- in contrast to her claim of earning

7,000/- per month is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Another ground of challenge is

that income of her husband which is not less than 8,00,000/- per month has wrongly been

assessed as 1,10,000/- per month.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES:

The coram went through the submission thoroughly given by both the parties which raised

the following questions:

Whether the Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes a provision for award of

interim maintenance to a spouse who has no independent income sufficient to support

her and fight the legal battle. Does the alimony is also given to a well qualified

spouse having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle.

Whether such spouse who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, can not

be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente

lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition.

As per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the spouse can seek interim

maintenance who has no independent income to support. In the decision reported as AIR

2003 Mad 212 Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs. M.Devaki High Court of Madras while

construing the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and relying on its earlier

decision reported as (2002) 2 M.L.J. 760 Kumaresan Vs.Aswathi held that for grant of

maintenance pendent lite, the party should not have sufficient independent income for her/his

support.

The court also referred to the observations made under Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh

Jaiswal with respect to award of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act to a well qualified spouse having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle.

Such a spouse is unworthy of any financial entitlement from the separated partner.
 The petitioners claim that she was earning only 7000 per month was put down by the

court on the basis of illogicality of the claim as she had been practicing as Chartered

Accountant since the year 2003 with M/s S.N.Verma & Company. Her claim was she

has no sufficient means to maintain herself and her children was complete

misrepresentation of accounts.

RATIO DECIDENDI

According to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act , the monetary assistance should

be given to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of

sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service

immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle in the nature of pendente life

alimony. However the court held that both the children of the parties have to be

awarded interim maintenance for a sum of 22,900/- as earlier decided by the Family

Court. And the court had struck down the claim of the petitioner seeking interim

maintenance for a sum of 3 lakh per month for herself and the two children, and 1.1 lakh

towards litigation expenses and also observed that the parties were indulging in jugglery of

accounts to present a misleading picture of their financial status.

The court held that the decision taken by the Family Court was a balanced one and did not

call for any interference.

WRITING SKILLS OF JUDGE

The language used by the Justice PRATIBHA RANI was so approachable that a layman

can get to that, which can be counted as the plus point of the justice. She was very much into

the reasonability of the references taken by the parties. She used the term jugglery of

accounts which shows her rich vocabulary and command over the language , such

interpretation makes this judgment much more interesting. She has put down

petitioners illogical claim on the basis of irrationality , which shows her ability to

interpret the statutes in the rationale manner.

While dealing with the appeal by the petitioner, she kept in mind who has

capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should not be permitted to saddle other

spouse with his or her expenditure and such spouse should not get pendente life

alimony at higher rate from other spouse. She ensures that the lazy spouse should not

get benefit out of it and the Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act should be

enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts are unable to support and

maintain themselves. She also indicated that such behaviour is indirectly against

healthyness of the society.By giving such judgments she is breaking the stereotype

that how affluent mother may be it is the obligation only of the father to maintain the minor.

Her verdict symbolises that law cannot be misused. The court order to be

driven by rationale,evidence, facts, and it have to be sparse and precise, not laden

with unwarranted hyperbole.