Increasing Interim maintenance without proper evidence of husband’s income, without material for enhancement is unjustified. HC Order Set aside by Supreme court of India
In this case, Husband filed RCR, filed file for maintenance u/s 24 HMA and District judge ordered 750/- p.m. as maintenance. Wife appeals to HC who increase it to 5000/- p.m. Husband appeals to SC and SC orders as follows “…even though respondent (wife) did not produce any evidence about income of appellant (husband), High Court enhanced the interim maintenance by assuming appellant’s income is Rs.15,000/- per month. …. could not show that there was any material for enhancing the maintenance. Therefore, we hold that the High Court was not justified in enhancing .. maintenance…..”
Classic case that can be quoted IF your wife does NOT have proper proof or reasons to get an enhacement
Supreme Court of India
Sanjeev Gupta vs Shalini Gupta on 23 February, 2009
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1163 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16742 of 2006)
Sanjeev Gupta …Appellant(s)
Shalini Gupta …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
During the pendency of H.M.A. Case No.158 of 2003 instituted by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, `the Act’], the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance. By an order dated 22nd May, 2004, District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, directed the appellant herein to pay interim maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month, apart from Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses. The respondent challenged that order by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the High Court directed the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance. The High Court also enhanced the litigation expenses from Rs.1,100/- to Rs.10,000/-. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A reading of the order under challenge shows that even though the respondent did not produce any evidence about the income of the appellant, the High Court enhanced the interim maintenance by assuming the appellant’s income is Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent could not show that there was any material for enhancing the maintenance. Therefore, we hold that the High Court was not justified in enhancing the amount of maintenance.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
February 23, 2009.
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting