R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 1.2.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, who granted maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife @ Rs. 6,000/- per month besides Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Ajay Jain filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Smt. Sangeeta Jain. During the pendency of the petition the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.4.1996. Ajay Jain was previously married and from that wedlock three children were born and they are in his custody. Similarly Sangeeta Jain was earlier married and out of that wedlock she gave birth to two daughters who are in her custody. The ages of the daughters are 15 years and 8 years respectively. From the present wedlock no child has been born. It is alleged by the respondent-applicant in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she has no source of in come and she is dependent upon her father for maintaining herself and the two daughters. It is further alleged by the wife that the petitioner- husband has triple storey house bearing No. 1602, Sector 7, Chandigarh and two telephone numbers i.e. 771802 and 702705. Besides this, he is also owner of House No. 1294, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, which is triple storey building. He is doing the business under the name and style of M/s A.P. Jain and Co. He is a registered property dealer and his income is more than Rs. 70,000/- per month. With these averments the respondent prayed for maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 10,000/- per month besides Rs. 7,500/- as litigation expenses. Notice of the application was given to the opposite party. The husband filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent, the wife is getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing the job of a teacher in Green-Field Nursery School, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. He denied that his income is Rs. 70,000/- per month. He stated that the described property is not owned by him, rather it is a Joint Hindu Family property. With this defence the petitioner-husband prayed for the dismissal of the application under Section 24 of the Act. Parties addressed arguments before the trial Court and for the reasons given in paras 11 to 13 of the order dated 1.2.2000, the learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 6,000/- per month, besides Rs. 5,000/- by way of litigation expenses. The reasons for awarding this amount are described as follows :- "11. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contains provisions for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Under this section, either spouse can apply for the maintenance. Under this section, if any of the spouses is not in a position to maintain herself or himself and to meet the expenses of proceedings, that spouse should be provided with maintenance and expenses by the other spouse who is in a position to do so. Now, the question arises whether the applicant-wife is not in a position to maintain herself and to bear the expenses of the litigation. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that respondent-wife is getting more than Rs. 3,000/- per month while doing job of teacher in the Green-field Nursery School, Gandhi Nagar. This contention is refuted by the respondent-wife in the re-joinder filed by her. The affidavit of the wife is also on the file to that effect that she has no source of income. To support his contention regarding the income of wife, the petitioner has not placed on file any document from the school to show that she is working and earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Without any cogent evidence on the file, it cannot be held that the respondent-wife is in a position to support herself and to meet the litigation expenses. 12. Now, the next question is to be seen whether the husband has sufficient income to maintain his legally wedded wife and the minor children. In the sworn affidavit dated 7.6.1999 filed by respondent-wife showed that the petitioner is a very wealthy man. His income has been mentioned more than Rs. 70,000/- p.m. He is shown to be the owner of Zen Maruti Car-800 and Tata Mobile. The assertion in the affidavit regarding his income and the properties has been refuted by the petitioner in the reply filed by him, but the petitioner-husband has not come with clean hands to disclose his monthly income. By filing the reply, he has not specifically mentioned his income which he could mentioned. The petitioner could file income tax or wealth tax/returns, but the husband failed to tell the Court his income for the reasons best known to him. Keeping in view the status of the parties, in my opinion, the petitioner-husband has sufficient income to maintain himself the legally wedded wife and children. 13. Now, the next question is to be determined what should be the amount of maintenance to be awarded under section 24 HMA. This section does not postulate any limit in the grant of maintenance or litigation expenses. But in a number of cases, it was held that the amount should be sufficient for the purpose of maintenance taking into consideration social position of the parties, standard of living of the spouse and the present cost of living. The amount of maintenance should not be so small as to deprive the applicant to pull on or to defend her case. In Gurmit Kaur v. Harbans Singh 1985(2) HLR 514 (P&H), it was held that where the husband has a good income, the wife richly deserves a high amount of maintenance. In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the husband is certainly a wealthy man. The wife is living along with her two minor daughters with great difficulty. Keeping in view the bare necessities of life i.e. shelter, clothes, food and education and other ancillary expenses, I find that the payment of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. on account of maintenance cannot be said to be unreasonable. Besides this monthly maintenance, the respondent-wife is entitled for the litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. This application is allowed from the date of filing the application under section 24 of HMA." Not satisfied with the order dated, 1.2.2000, the present revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.;