Sujoy Paul, J. - (1.)These petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the common order dated 21.12.2017, whereby the application (I.A. No.3) preferred by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was decided by the Court below. The parties are at loggerheads on the validity of this order. The husband contends that the Court below has erred in granting Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife, whereas she was not entitle to get any amount in view of her qualification and background. The wife is aggrieved by the said order and contended that on account of the fact that she has no source of livelihood, the Court below should have granted her larger amount in the head of maintenance. It is prayed that 1/3rd salary of husband should be granted to the wife as maintenance and this amount should be given from the date of application preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(2.)Mr. Rajesh Nema, learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife lodged a police complaint against the husband. In the said application she claimed Rs.10,000/- per month and, therefore, she is entitled to get aforesaid amount only. The Court below has erred in granting her an amount of Rs.25,000/-. He placed reliance on [Preeti Archana Sharma vs Ravind Kumar Sharma, 1979 AIR(All) 29] to bolster his submission that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not stipulate anything about the status to be maintained by either of the parties. The question of status is not relevant while deciding the application under Section 24 of the Act. The only purpose behind insertion under Section 24 of the Act is to avoid starvation or destitution during the proceedings before the competent authority.
(3.)Per-Contra, Mr. Kunal Thakre, learned counsel for the wife placed reliance on the application (Page No.48) and urged that a plain reading of this application shows that it was filed when wife was residing with the husband at Chennai. At that point of time, she had shelter and other protection and, therefore, small amount (Rs.10,000/-) was claimed. However, later on, she has come to her matrimonial house at Bhopal wheres she has no source of livelihood. She has to take care of her small daughter who is aged about six years and in that case, wife is entitled to get 1/3rd of the salary of the husband. The salary slip, income tax return of husband is not in dispute. Husband earns Rs.1,85,000/- per month. Thus, Court below should have enhanced this amount and should have granted the amount from the date of submission of wife's application under Section 24 of the Act. Reliance is placed on [Manju Raghuvanshi vs. Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi, 2006 4 MPLJ 302].