Thursday, 3 March 2011

Man's assets not to be considered for alimony: HC

Man's assets not to be considered for alimony, rules High Court

Staff Reporter


"Husband not the sole owner of his family's assets"


NEW DELHI: Ruling that the value of the assets of a man cannot be taken into account while calculating the quantum of maintenance for his estranged wife under the Domestic violence Act, the Delhi High Court has fixed the monthly alimony of a woman at half of her husband's salary.

A Metropolitan Magistrate had given the woman, Priyanka Khanna, a monthly alimony of Rs. 15,000 which was 50 per cent of the gross salary of her husband. The woman was given Rs. 10,000 under the head of alimony and Rs. 5,000 for house rent.

She had sought alimony as well as a flat from her husband to live in.

However, the woman was dissatisfied with the MM's order. She moved a court of the Additional Sessions challenging it.

The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties raised the alimony to Rs.45,000 per month on the basis of monthly income as well as the assets of the husband of the woman.

The husband moved the High Court challenging the Sessions court's order.

Allowing his petition, Justice Dhingra reduced the maintenance amount of the woman from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 20,000 accepting Rs.41,000 as the monthly gross salary of the husband.

While allowing the petition of the husband, Justice Dhingra observed that it was wrong to calculate the quantum of maintenance on the basis of income as well assets of a man as this logic could also be used while calculating alimony for an estranged woman which would go against her.

He further observed that the husband was not the sole owner of the assets of his family. His parents and brothers also have right in it, he added.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

Courtesy_

http://www.thehindu.com


Also read the full judgment as follows:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 4066 of 2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 13807/2009 

01.09.2010

AMIT KHANNA ... Petitioner Through: Mr J.C. Mahindro, Advocate

Versus

PRIYANKA KHANNA & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Respondent No. 1 in person

Mr Sunil Sharma, APP for the State

Date of Reserve: 23rd July, 2010

Date of Order: 1st September, 2010

AND

Crl. M.C. No. 1416 OF 2010

PRIYANKA KHANNA ... Petitioner Through: In person.

Versus

STATE ... Respondent Through: Mr Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.

Mr Sunil Sharma, APP for the State

Date of Reserve: 23rd July, 2010

Date of Order: 1st September, 2010

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. 

JUDGMENT

1. By these petitions petitioners, husband and wife have assailed order dated 26th October, 2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in appeal. Ms Priyanka Khanna had moved an application before learned Metropolitan Crl. M.C. No. 4066 of 2009 & 1416 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 Magistrate (MM) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also made an interim application for residence, protection and maintenance. Learned MM considered the income of the husband for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and found that annual gross income of the husband for the latest financial year i.e. 2007-08 was ` 3,47,550/- (before deduction of tax). She considered that gross monthly income of the husband was between ` 28,000/- and ` 29,000/-. She awarded monthly maintenance of ` 10,000/- to the wife. Apart from that, she also awarded ` 5,000/- per mensem (p.m.) as rent for residence. Thus, she awarded ` 15,000/- p.m. to the wife. In appeal, the learned ASJ enhanced the house rent payable to the wife from ` 5,000/- p.m. to ` 15,000/- p.m. and maintenance from ` 10,000/- p.m. to ` 30,000/- p.m., although, the husband had placed before the learned ASJ his latest salary slip showing gross monthly income of ` 41,000/-. This enhancement was done by the learned ASJ on the ground that husband was a man of status and owner of vast movable and immovable properties and it was a matter of common knowledge that parties generally conceal their actual income and do not show their real income in the Income Tax Returns. The respondent-wife was alone in this world. She had lost her job and was unemployed and was living with her parents and dependent on them. It was also observed by the learned ASJ that it was very difficult to find a suitable residence by paying ` 5,000/- p.m.

2. It is noteworthy that a petition for divorce was filed by the husband which is pending before the court of ADJ and the learned ADJ after considering the material vide order dated 16th September, 2008, granted to the wife a monthly maintenance of ` 25,000/- from the date of filing of application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act till the disposal of the case and awarded ` 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Crl. M.C. No. 4066 of 2009 & 1416 of 2010 Page 2 of 4

3. It is evident from the order passed by the learned ASJ that he has not enumerated the vast movable and immovable properties owned by the husband. Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the Court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband. When allegations are made by the spouses about the vast movable and immovable properties of other, even for passing an interim order the allegations must be substantiated by some sort of documentary evidence. The properties existing in the name of sister-in-law, mother or father cannot be considered to be the properties of the spouses. If such properties are considered as properties of husband, then property existing in the name of father of the wife, mother of the wife or brother or sister of the wife could reflect her status and income and the courts can think that a wife has sufficient properties and she does not need maintenance.

4. After attaining self sufficiency and being employed, a man's own income has to be the basis for fixing maintenance for his dependants whether wife, parents or children. Properties of his brothers or parents cannot be a basis for fixing maintenance. Status of a man is not determined from the status of his brothers or parents. There may be many cases where a man is egoistic and does not take help from his rich parents or rich brother and does not maintain same status which his rich brother and parents may maintain.

5. In the present case, the marriage between husband and wife was not a marriage arranged by respective parents. It was a love marriage after courtship of 8 years and I do not think that this courtship or love was there between the parties before marriage because of the status of brothers of the husband or status of parents of the husband. It has to be presumed that love was with the person and not with the property and it is the income and wealth of the husband which is to be looked by the Crl. M.C. No. 4066 of 2009 & 1416 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 Court for deciding proper maintenance. When the income of the husband was ` 41,000/- p.m., granting maintenance plus rent of ` 45,000/- p.m., under no circumstance is justified. I find the order passed by the learned ASJ unjustified and contrary to settled legal preposition. The order of learned ASJ is hereby set aside.

6. Since the income of the husband is now ` 41,000/- p.m. without deducting tax and after deducting tax it would be around ` 38,500/-, a maintenance of ` 15,000/- p.m. and rent of ` 5,000/- p.m. would be the just maintenance. This would be payable from the date of order of the Appellate Court. Prior to the date of order of the Appellate Court, since the income of the husband was only ` 29,000/- p.m., the order of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate would prevail. However, this maintenance and amount towards rent is not over and above the maintenance awarded by the matrimonial court, neither this order shall affect the order passed by ADJ granting maintenance @ ` 25,000/- p.m. The amount payable under this order shall be adjustable against other maintenance order.

7. Both petitions stand disposed of in view of my above finding and conclusion. SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2010

acm

Crl. M.C. No. 4066 of 2009 & 1416 of 2010 Page 4 of 4

Courtesy_

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing reports about the usage of Domestic Violence Act (The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. So the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy".