L.N. Mittal, J.
CM No. 20471-CII of 2013
Allowed as prayed for.
CM No. 20471-CII of 2013
The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-7 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, husband-Jasdeep Singh Sahney has assailed order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the matrimonial Court, thereby allowing application filed by respondent-wife Navneet Kaur u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance pendent elite for the respondent-wife as well as for minor daughter of the parties admittedly residing with the respondent, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2,500/-.
2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial Court is highly excessive, keeping in view the income of the petitioner-husband as reflected in income tax returns (Annexures P-3 to P-7).
3. I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Income tax returns of many businessmen are more concealing than revealing. The income tax returns in such cases are mostly deceptive. Moreover, when matrimonial dispute had arisen between the parties, the petitioner-husband would intentionally understate his income to avoid payment of maintenance to the wife.
3. The aforesaid conclusion is more staking in the instant case as borne out from the version of the petitioner-husband himself. He has himself alleged in his reply to the application before the matrimonial Court that he and his family paid Rs. 61,09,000/- to the respondent-wife as part of understanding arrived at between the parties in this Court at the time of decision of application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner and his family members. It was also pleaded that the petitioner and his family members returned jewelry worth Rs. 1,29,08,000/- and other gift items worth Rs. 51,45,000/- to the respondent, besides jewelry worth Rs. 30,00,000/- given by the petitioner and his family to the respondent. This plea of the petitioner-husband himself depicts the highly rich status of the petitioner and his family. In these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 25,000/- per month meant for respondent as well as minor daughter of the parties residing with her, cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant reduction by this Court at the instance of the petitioner-husband in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
