C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -1-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) C.R. No.5931 of 2008.
Decided on 21st July, 2009.
Anurag Verma.
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
Shaveta Verma.
.. Respondent
PRESENT Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate,
for the petitioner-husband.
Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate,
for the respondent-wife.
***
(2) C.R. No.6256 of 2008.
Shaveta Verma.
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
Anurag Verma.
Respondent
***
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -2-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner-wife.
Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate,
for the respondent-husband.
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2008, passed
by additional District Judge, Panchkula, granting interim
maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner-wife Shaveta
Verma (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and Rs.5,000/- per
month for her minor son, in an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, in a petition for annulment of marriage filed by
respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent),
both the parties have filed revision petitions. Since both civil
revisions arise out of the same impugned order, the Civil Revision
No.6256 of 2008, Shaveta Verma Vs. Anurag Verma and Civil
Revision No.5931 of 2008, Anurag Verma Vs. Shaveta Verma, have
been taken up together.
In her application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, petitioner Shaveta Verma had averred that the
respondent being an IAS Officer, is drawing a salary of Rs.40,000/-
per month apart from other perks and facilities. He has also got
other sources of income i.e., rental income from various immovable
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -3-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
properties situated in various places at Chandigarh and Patiala,
dividends from the shares worth Rs.15 lacs and his total income is
Rs.55,000/ per month-. It had been averred in the application that
the respondent is owner/benami owner of two plots at Khanna and
two flats in IAS Society behind PGI whereas the petitioner is simply
a housewife having done B.Sc., in Home Science not gainfully
employed anywhere and was unable to maintain herself as well as
minor son Aneesh born on 26.07.1997. She claimed that she is
currently doing her B.Ed Degree course from Govt. College of
Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh, so that she might be able to
stand on her own feet and to support her son. It was claimed that
Aneesh Verma is in 5th Class studying in Straw Berry Fields World
School, Sector 26, Chandigarh, for which she has to pay tuition fee
to the tune of Rs.8250/- for three months in addition to Rs.900/- for
transportation charges besides meeting the expenses of cloths and
books etc. His expenditure was claimed to be Rs.5500/- to
Rs.6,000/- per month. She claimed that she was looking for a
suitable accommodation on rent which is going to cost her about
Rs.15,000/- per month. It was claimed that the respondent do not
have any liability as his parents are having independent income. On
the basis of above said averments she claimed that she is entitled to
Rs.30,000/- per month to sustain. Litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-
were also claimed by her.
The respondent-husband in his reply claimed that
the petitioner had suppressed her property and income with a view to
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -4-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
mislead the Court. As per her income tax return for the Financial
Year ending on 31.03.2006, she earned agricultural income of
Rs.1,05,000/- from 6 acres of land in the outskirts of Khanna. For the
Financial Year ending 31.03.2008, she would be earning
Rs.1,50,000/- from the said land. As per computation sheet with
income tax return, she had advanced a sum of about Rs.10,000,00/-
to her mother Raj Rani on 31.03.2006. She would be earning an
interest of, at least, Rs.1,55,000/- on this amount for the Financial
Year ending on 31.03.2008. Her monthly income is more than
Rs.25,000/-, whereas carry home salary of the respondent-husband
was only Rs.24,000/-. The respondent averred in the reply that he
had been paying the tuition fee of the minor son even after
separation and with basic pay of Rs.15,500/-, his total income is
Rs.32,508/- and after deductions towards GPF and income tax etc.,
net payable to him is Rs.24,138/-. The respondent claimed that the
two plots mentioned in the application are actually owned by his
mother as she had purchased the same from her own resources. He
admitted that he is a member of Punjab IAS Officers Cooperative
House Building Society and applied for a plot. He admitted the
annual dividends from shares to Rs.6,000/-.
After considering the material made available to
the trial Court, the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide order
dated 02.05.2008, allowed the application and granted maintenance
pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- per month which includes Rs.5,000/- for
petitioner and Rs.5,000/- for minor son. Rs.2200/- were granted as
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -5-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
litigation expenses to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, Sh.Chetan
Mittal, Senior Advocate, has vehemently urged that the respondent-
husband has intentionally concealed his income tax return, therefore,
an adverse inference should be drawn against him in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs.District
Judge, Dehradun and others, reported in (1997) 7, Supreme
Court Cases, Page 7. He argued that as the respondent-husband
has been able to conceal his true income; Even on the basis of
modest estimate, the wife should have been granted, at least, a sum
of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and sufficient amount i.e.,
Rs.10,000/- per month for the child for his proper upbringing.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-
husband, Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, pressed for Civil Revision
No.5931 of 2008, to contend that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month
to the wife is an excessive amount in view of the agricultural income
of the wife and she is not entitled to any maintenance.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the entire facts and circumstances of this case and
carefully considered the contentions of counsel for both the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner-wife has been awarded a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in total, as maintenance pendente lite
which includes, a sum of Rs.5,000/- for her and another sum of
Rs.5,000/- for the child taking into consideration the status of the
parties and the expenditure which is required to be incurred by the
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -6-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
petitioner for looking after the child whereas the respondent-husband
has claimed that it is he who is himself bearing the expenses of the
education of the child. Great emphasis has been laid down on the
judgment of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal’s case (supra) to contend that an
adverse inference is required to be drawn by the Court about the
stated income of the husband as he has made an attempt to conceal
his true income by not producing his income tax return. There is no
dispute regarding the practice of drawing adverse inference against a
person who withholds a document necessary for the adjudication of a
particular point of controversy. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal’s case, the
husband was a retired Lieutenant Colonel and he did not file any
certificate of his salary from his employer though the wife had
contended that he was owner of two companies which was denied by
the husband. No proof of income was available with the Court. In
said circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the
husband had not filed any assessment order but had filed his
computation of taxable income for the Assessment Years 1992 to
1997. Having not given true account of his assessment and income
adverse inference was drawn, as such, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was
ordered to be paid to the wife as maintenance pendente lite. It was
also held that conduct of the parties in the proceedings; the
averments made in the application and reply thereto; the tendency of
the wife to inflate the income out of proportions and that of husband
to suppress the same; and the like, there has to be honesty of
purpose in both the parties. In the present case, the salary of the
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -7-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
respondent has been disclosed by him. He has explained his position
pertaining to the properties which the petitioner-wife had claimed to
be belonging to him, the respondent-husband has placed on record
the income tax return of the petitioner. There is no occasion to draw
any adverse inference against the respondent by following the
observations of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal’s case. In the present case, the
trial Court seems to have, after proper application of mind and taking
into consideration all the factors, permitted the interim maintenance
to be Rs.10,000/- per month, though Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, does not specifically permit the grant of maintenance to
the child but it is always prudent for a Court determining interim
maintenance taking into consideration the responsibility of
maintenance of the minor child by wife unable to maintain herself
while estimating the entitlement of maintenance pendente lite.
It is not out of place to mention here that the
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application on the
basis of subsequent events i.e., the additional liability of the
petitioner to maintain the child on account of enhanced expenditure
having been filed before the lower Court, he should be permitted to
withdraw this revision petition with liberty to establish before the
lower Court that on subsequent and additional grounds, the wife has
acquired a right for enhancement of the interim maintenance.
Mr.Arun Palli, counsel for the respondent-husband
has vehemently contended that it is not a case of enhancement of
maintenance pendente lite but a case where on account of conduct
C.R. No.5931 of 2008 -8-
C.R. No.6256 of 2008
of the petitioner and availability of enough resources with the
respondent the petition should have been dismissed. He submitted
that in view of the petitioner having ultimately not pressed the
revision petition for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite, he
may also be permitted to withdraw the revision petition as not
pressed but he contended that the withdrawal of the revision petition
may not be treated to imply that his right to contest the petition for
additional maintenance pendente lite could be prejudiced.
Both the revision petitions are dismissed, without
prejudice to the rights of the parties in application for enhancement of
maintenance pending before the Court below.
(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
July 21, 2009.
rka