LexNEETA RAKESH JAIN versus RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 505 NEETA RAKESH JAIN v. RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN (Civil Appeal No. 5660 of 2010) .JULY 20, .2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ;J Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: A B s. 24- Interim maintenance of Rs. 120001-p.m. to wife C by High Court - Enhancement of - Held: High Court did not consider the vital aspects that wife does not have any settled job and husband is highly qualified - Husband has worked with renowned pompanies and left the job not due to any compulsion but because he wanted to grow big·- Hence, High o Court directed to reconsider 'the wife's application tor interim maintenance. s. 24 - Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings - Exercise of discretion by courts - Explained. ln the appeal before this Court, the appellant-wife has challenged the order passed by High Court which fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 120001- per month, pending appeal. · :Partly allowing the appeal, the Court E F HEL.:D: 1:1 Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pTovides that in any proceeding under the Act, the ·s,pouse who ·has ·no independent income sufficient for G her or his support may apply ·to the court to direct the ·respondent to ·;pay the ·monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very 505 H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim B maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, c namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by 0 its very nature is temp.orary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute. [Para E 8] [510-E-H; 511-A-B] 1.2 In the instant case, the stand of the husband that he is drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company since August 2005 is inherently improbable. The husband is highly qualified; he is CA, ICWA, CIMA F and has also completed course of Computer Information Technology. He has worked with renowned and big companies as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any G compulsion but because he wanted to grow big. He has admitted that having worked for six years, he decided to do his owr, business and started the company-PCL in which Ile sought financial/administrative help of his brother and one NA. It cannot be believed that a person H who has started his own business leaving the job in 2000 f\!EETA RAKESH JAIN v. RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN 507 would start drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month A from the company from August, 2005. The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month as a gospel truth. It appears that wife does not have any settled job; B she has worked at few places for few months. This is eminently a case in which the High Court must reconsider the wife's application for interim maintenance. [Para 9] [511-C-G] 1.3 The impugned order is set aside and the c application made by the wife for interim maintenance is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration. The cost of the appeal is quantified at Rs. 20,000/- which the respondent would pay to the appellant. [Para 1 O] [511-H; 512-A-B] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5660 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Application No. 107 /2006 in family Court Appeal No. 10 of 2006.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.