- (1.) VIDE this judgment, I intend to dispose of CRR -(F)11 of 2014 titled as Nakul Naxena vs. Shivani Saxena and another and CRR -(F)36 of 2014 titled as Shivani Saxena and another vs. Nakul Saxena as both these revisions have arisen out of the same judgment. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.11.2013 passed by 3Sh. V.P. Gupta, District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, both the parties have preferred two separate revision petitions for granting maintenance to wife to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ - per month and to respondent No.2 son to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ - per month. Briefly stated, Shivani Saxena wife and Madhav minor son of Nakul Saxena, filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. It is pleaded in the petition that Shivani Saxena petitioner No.1 before the trial Court entered into marriage with Nakul Saxena respondent before the trial Court, on 19.5.2005 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage both of them lived together as husband and wife at Lucknow, Delhi, Gaziabad and Mumbai and out of the wedlock a male child Madhav was born on 7.11.2007 at Fortis Hospital, Noida. The petitioner No.1 before the trial Court has further pleaded that Nakul Saxena and his family members were greedy, influential and dominating persons and they started complaining that the dowry articles were not according to their expectation and as per their status. Shivani Saxena performed her marital duties and obligations towards her husband and his family members. They started harassing, humiliating, maltreating and giving beatings to her on account of bringing more dowry including a Toyota car as per their status. She was also thrown out of her matrimonial home number of times for fulfillment of their aforesaid illegal demands and on each and every occasion her parents used to fulfill the direct and indirect demands of the respondent. On 28.11.2009 respondent asked her to stay for 15 days at her parental home saying that he has to go abroad for official work and will take back the petitioners on his return. However, the respondent never turned up after 28.11.2009 to take her back to her matrimonial home, despite the fact that on telephone he was asked to do so by her and her father several times. On 25.12.2009 the respondent, however, flatly refused to come and take back the petitioners and rather threatened to remarry with some another girl. The petitioner No. 1 has no movable or immovable property, whereas respondent is working as Senior Vice President in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Mumbai and is a rich man and drawing a salary of Rs. 3 lacs per month. Father of the respondent is retired Inspector General (Stamps) and both the respondent and his father have huge properties of their own. After marriage, respondent has purchased a three bed room flat No. A -1/7, Rail Vihar, Indrapuram, Gaziabad for more than Rs. 60 lacs. Another Flat No. D -1001, Vijay Apartments, Indirapuram, Gaziabad having value of more than Rs. 35 lacs was purchased by him which was sold through a dealer for Rs. 40 lacs. The respondent has invested huge amount by purchasing a plot in Hi Tech City, Gaziabad. Besides that he also owns a very big house No. 191/139, Old Behrana, Allahabad (U.P.) and value of said house is more than Rs. 1 crore. He has got another big house No. 3/444, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and value of the same is more than Rs. 1 crore. Maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs per month, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/ - was prayed for.
(2.) APPLICATION was strongly resisted by the respondent and it is pleaded that simple marriage was performed at Gomti Nagar Lucknow. Petitioner No.1 stayed at his resident at Lucknow for five days and thereafter for one or two months at Delhi, one or two months at Gaziabad in the year 2005 and then left for Hisar for pursuing her studies as a regular Ph.D. student of HAU and she used to visit the place of his residence at Gaziabad only during weekends and holidays and she remained mostly at Hisar for pursuing her studies between 2005 to 2007. During that time all the expenses for her education, boarding and conveyance etc. were borne by him till completion of her Ph.D. in the year 2007. However, later on he brought petitioner No.1 from Hisar to his residence at Gaziabad for delivery. The respondent provided all facilities to petitioner No.1 and her family members. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is guilty of cruelty and petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. He has further submitted that value of the properties has been exaggerated. Petitioner No. 1 was granted maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/ - per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in respect of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Father of the respondent is 75 years old and he has to look after him. His father has undergone surgery and require regular attendance and financial help. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, accepted the application and allowed maintenance @ Rs. 40,000/ - per month to Shivani Saxena and Rs. 20,000/ - P.M. to Madhav from the date of filing of application. However, it was made clear that amount paid to the petitioners under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be adjustable towards the maintenance granted to them. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.11.2013, Nakul Saxena filed CRR (F) -11 of 2014, whereas Shivani Saxena filed CRR (F) -36 of 2014 for enhancement of amount of maintenance. I have heard counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.
(3.) SH . Anupam Gupta, learned senior counsel for husband Nakul Saxena has submitted that the trial Court has observed that Nakul Saxena is getting gross salary of Rs. 2,85,118/ - per month. It is further submitted that out of that amount Rs. 56,468/ - are being deducted as income tax and that amount cannot be said to be the income of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Nakul Saxena has taken house on rent at Mumbai, where he is posted, @ Rs. 36,000/ - per month. He has also raised a loan and is paying EMI @ Rs. 22,716/ - per month. So, it is submitted that the said amount has to be deducted in respect of the income of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife was granted maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/ - per month. However, she filed petition for enhancement before this Court and this Court enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ - per month. Wife preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same was withdrawn. Since the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - per month has already been fixed, so maintenance to the tune of Rs. 60,000/ - per month is highly excessive. So, prayer has been made for reducing the amount of maintenance. On the other hand, counsel for Shivani Saxena and Madhav has submitted that the amount paid in respect of EMI of house and that of payment of rent cannot be deducted. At the most, the income tax amount can be deducted. Even if that amount is deducted, the income of Nakul Saxena is about Rs. 2,25,000/ - per month and half of the amount can be allowed as maintenance. To strengthen his argument learned counsel has relied upon the authority Vijay Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 3 RCR(Civ) 323 (DB). So, prayer has been made for enhancement of maintenance amount.;