MANISH JAINversusAKANKSHA JAIN

                              [2017] 3 S.C.R. 702


 A                              MANISH JAIN
                                       v.
                              AKANKSHA JAIN
                         (Civil Appeal No. 4615 of2017)
. B                            MARCH 30, 2017
              [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
             Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s.24 - Maintenance pendente
      lite and expenses of proceedings - Reduction of - Respondent-wife
      filed application u/s.24 claiming interim main(enance during
 c    pendency of divorce petition - Application dismissed by Lower
      court - High Court directed appellant-husband to pay interim
      maintenance of Rs. 60, 000/- p. m. in addition to amount directed to
      be paid to the respondent-wife in proceeding under D. V. Act - On
      appeal, held: An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of
 D    the proceedings is conditional on· t~e circumstance that wife or
      husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income
      sufficient for her/his s.upport or to meet the necessary expenses of
      the proceedings - In the instant case, at the time of claiming
      maintenance pendente Iite, the respondent-wife did not have sufficient
      income capable of supporting herself, and therefore, the High Court
 E
      was justified in ordering maintenance - Howeve1; amount ordered
      by_the High Court is on the higher side and in the interest ofjustice
      same reduced to Rs.25,0001-p.m. (in addition to amount paid under
      the proceedings of the D. V. Act).
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
 F
             HELD: 1. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
      empowers the Court in any proceeding .under the Act, if ifappears
      to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may
      be, has no independent income suffic~ent for her or his support
      and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the
 G
      application of any one of them order the other party to pay to the
      petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly
      maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding,
      having regar.d to also the income of both the applicant and the
      respondent. Heading of Section 24 of the Ad is "Maintenance
 H    pendente lite and(Eixpenses of proceedings". The Section, 4owever,
           .                           702             .
               MANISH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN                               703


 does not use the word "maintenance"; but the word "support"              A
 can be interpreted to mean as Section 24 is intended to provide
 fo_r maintenance pe11de11te lite. [Para 14) (708-G-H; 709-A]
        2. An .order for maintenance pell{/e11te life or for costs of
  the proceedings is conditional on the circu111stance that the wife
  or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent             B
. income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary
  expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of
  maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself.
  Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents is also
  immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of
  the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance            c
  and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient
  for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon
  factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim
  for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors
  brought before the Court. (Para 15) [709-B-C]                            D
       3. In the present case, at the time of claiming maintenance
 pe11de11te lite when the respondent-wife had no sufficient income
 capable of supporting herself, the High Court .was justified in
 ordering maintenance. However, the maintenance amount of
 Rs.60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in addition· to                    E
 Rs.10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act) appears
 to be on the higher side and in the interest of justice, the same is
 reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month. The maintenance pell{/e11te
 lite of Rs.25,000/- is to be paid to the respondent-wife by the
 appellant-husband (in addition to Rs.10,000/- paid under the
 proceedings of the D.V. Act). [Para 16) (709-D-E)                         F

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4615
 of2017.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2014 of the·High Court
. of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No. 910 of2010.                          G
       Jayant Mehta, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan, Ms~ Sarika,
 Advs. for the Appellant.
       S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Bansal, G. K. Bansal, Advs. for
 the Respondent.
                                                                           H
704             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 3 S.C.R.


A          The Order of the Court was delivered by
            .R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted.
               2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband
      against the order dated 2 l.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
      New Delhi in C.M.(M) No.910 of2010. In the said judgment, the High
B     Court while setting aside the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the
      Additional District Judge-II (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi who declined to
      award maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife under Section
      24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, l 955 has granted interim maintenance to
      the respondent-wife at the rate ofRs.60,000/- per month to be paid by
c     the appellant-husband Manish Jain with effed from I" February, 2012
      till the disposal of divorce petition. The said amount was fixed in addition
      to Rs. I 0,000/- which the appellant-husband has already been paying by
      way of interim maintenance as per the order passed in Criminal Appeal
      No.65 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from
      Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short 'the D.V. Act'].
D
             3. This is a case of marital discord which has a chequered history.
      Brief facts leading to this appeal by way of special leave are as under:-
      Both the appellant and the respondent got married on 16.02.2005 and
      they were living at V-38, Green Park, New Delhi. The couple shifted to
      an accommodation at 303, SFS Apartment, Hauz Khas, New Delhi on
E     15.04.2007. In or about July, 2007 relationship between the parties got -
      strained. In September, 2007 the appellant-husband filed a divorce petition
      HMA No.553/2007 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'the
      HM Act'] seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
             4. In November, 2007 the respondent-wife filed a petition under
F     the D.V. Act along with interim relief i.e., maintenance. She also filed a
      complaint on 23. l 1.2007 under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC with
      CAW Cell, Amar Colony, Nanakpura, New Delhi against the appellant-
      husband and his family members which was later on registered as FIR
      bearing No.190 of 2008, Police Station, Friends Colony, New Delhi on
·G    04.03.2008. In December, 2007, respondent filed yet another Complaint
      Case No.381 of2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Mahila Court,
      Patiala House, New Delhi. Her interiifr'application seeking maintenance
      amongst other reliefs under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act was dismissed
      by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi by order dated
      23.04.2008 011 the ground that the respondent was employed and was
H
                MAN!SH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN                                    705
                     [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

getting a stable income and that no document was placed on record by             A
the respondent to show that respondent had again become jobless as the
publication of the Magazine FNL had been stopped. Against the dismissal
of application for maintenance, the respondent had filed appeal before
Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House in Criminal Appeal No.65 of
2008. In the said appeal and in Criminal Revision No.66 of 2008,
                                                                                 B
Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House by an order dated 01.09.2009
granted maintenance ofRs. l 0,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.
       5. The appellant-husband filed an application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. on 22.04.2008 for grant of bail in anticipation of his likely arrest.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant-husband subject
to return of Toyota Corolla and dowry/jewellery articles to the                  c
respondent-wife within a week from the date of order till the next date
of hearing which is said to have been complied with. Order was also
passed directing the respondent to deposit Rs.12,00,000/- towards alleged
return of dowry articles.
       6. The respondent-wife filed application under Section 24 of the          D
HM Act claiming interim maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4,00,000/-
per month and also a sum of Rs.80,000/- to meet litigation expenses
during the pendency of the divorce petition. In the said application, the
respondent-wife pleaded that she was having no source of income to
maintain herself and that she is dependent upon others for her day to            E
day needs and requirements. The said application was resisted by the
appellant-husband contending that the respondent-wife is an educated
lady and that she had completed her one year course ofFashion Designing
from J.D. Institute, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and that she is capable of
earning monthly salary ofRs.50,000/. The application filed under Section
24 of the HM Act was dismissed by Additional District Judge-II, Tis              F
Hazari, Delhi by order dated 15.03.2010.-Being aggrieved, the respondent-
wife filed Cr!. M.A. No.17724 of 2012 before the High Court, Delhi.
The High Court in its order dated 08.11.2011 in C.M.(M) No.910 of
2010 filed by the wife against the order dated 15.03.2010 directed both
the parties to file an affidavit truthfully disclosing their correct income.     G
Both the husband and the wife filed an affidavit as to their income in
compliance of the aforesaid order. After so directing the parties to file
affidavit regarding their income and after referring to the income of
appellant-husband and the properties which the appellant and his family
are owning and also the standard ofliving of the respondent~wife which
                                                                                 H
706            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     she is required to maintain, the Hjgh Court by the impugned order directed
      the appellant-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per
      month in addition to Rs. I 0,000/- which was directed to be paid to the
      respondent-wife in the proceedings under the D.V. Act.
             7. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant-
B     husband ~ame in appeal before this Court by way of special leave. After
      giving opportunity to the parties to work out a settlement which ultimately
      failed, the same was dismissed on 15.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the
      dismissal of the above petition, a review petition was filed on 13.05.2014
      in which notice was issued by this Court on 06.08.2014 and on 03.02.2016
      the same was allowed and the Special Leave Petition was restored to its
c     original number which is the subject matter before us.
             8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the
      respondent-wife has concealed her employment and independent s0urce
      of income on several occasions throughout the matrimonial proceedings
      before the courts below and also that the High Court has committed a
D     grave error in interfering with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court
      under Section 24 of the HM Act. The learned counsel for the appellant-
      husband submitted that the trial court after analyzing the evidence that
      the wife was educated, professionally qualified in the Fashion industry _
      and had sufficient independent income rejected the application of the
E     wife seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the HM Act. It was
      submitted that the High Court without proper appreciation of the income
      of the parties had wrongly set asid,e the order of the trial Court and fixed
      an abnormal amount ofRs.60,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-
      wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel
      further submitted that in C~iminal Appeal No.65 of2008 under Section
F     23(2) of the D.V. Act, the appellant-husband is paying an interim
      maintenance of Rs.I 0,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and the
      appellant-husband has so far made a total payment of Rs. 7,50,0001- in
      the proceedings under D.V. Act, apart from returning a Toyota Corolla
      car worth Rs.13,00,000/- besides depositing a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-
G     and a sum ofRs.2, 75,000/- towards untraced admitted dowry articles in
      compliance with the order passed by the Court. It was further submitted
      that the appellant-husband's firms/companies have been either shut down
      due to heavy loss and/orunderthe stage of winding up and the appellant-
      husband is not in a position to pay the exorbitant amount ofRs.60,000/-
      per month as maintenance pendente .lite to the respondent-wife ..
H
                 MANISH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN                                    707
                      [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

       · 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife at the outset submitted      A
that the principle of providing maintenance is to ensure the living conditions
of respondent-wife similar to that of appellant-husband whereas in the
present case the respondent-wife is yet to receive any money.
       I0. We have heard the matter at considerable length. Pa11ies are
entangled in several rounds oflitigation making allegations and counter           B
allegations against each other. Since various proceedings are pending
between the parties, we are not inclined to go into the merits oftl{e rival
contentions advanced by the parties. The only question falling for
consideration is whether the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance
pendente lite and whether the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the
High Court is on the higher side.                                                 c
       11. The Court exercises a wide discretion in the matterof granting
alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial and neither arbitrary
nor capricious. It is to be guided, on sound principles of matrimonial law
and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and
having regard to the object of the Act. The Court would not be in a               D
position to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the parties when
deciding an application for interim alimony and would not allow its
discretion to be fettered by the nature of the allegations made by them
and would not examine the merits of the case. Section 24 of the HM
Act lays down that in arriving at the quantum of interini maintenance to          E
be paid by one spouse to another, the Court must have rega~d to the
appellant's own income and the income of the respondent.
        12. At the time of filing application under Section 24 of the HM
Act in December, 2007, the respondent-wife was doing her internship in
fashion designing in J .D. Institute of Fashion Technology and just               F
completed the course and was not employed at that time. Only in the
month of May, 2008, she became a trainee and joined FNL Magazine of
Images Group as Junior Fashion Stylist and was earning an approximate/
stipend income ofRs.21,315/- per rrionth and due to recession, the same
is said to have been reduced to Rs.16,315/- for three months that is July,
August and September in the year 2009. It is stated that thereafter the           G
respondent-wife has become jobless and associated with <;:osmopolitan
Magazine and according to the respondent-wife, she was wor!<ing as a
Stylist and is paid nominal amount ofRs.4,500/- per shoot and the said
amount is inclusive of expenses like travelling etc. On a perusal of the
judgment of the High Court and also the affidavit of the respondent-wife,         H
708             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     it is clear that the respondent-wife has no permanent source of
      employment and no permanent source of income.
              13. Appellant-husband is stated to be a partner in the firms of his
      family business. It is also stated that the appellant-husband and his family
      own several valuable properties and has flourishing business. Insofar as
B     the properties/income of appellant-husband, the High Court has made
      the following observations:-
            • "38. From the pleading of the respondent before other Courts, it
              has come on record that the respondent's family is having
              successful and flourishing business of electrical and non-ferrous
c             metals for the last 22 years. They are successful in their business.
              His mother belongs to a family ofjournalists and lawyers ....
              39. From the material placed on record by the petitioner, ririma
              facie it appears to the Coutt that even the respondent has not
              made full disclosure about his income and correct status of the
D             family in the affidavits filed by him. The statements made by
              him are contrary to the statement made in the bail application.
              Prima facie, it appears to the Court that the respondent is hiding
              his income by trying to show himself as a pauper, however, the
              documents placed on record speak differently. At the same time
              the family members have a reasonably flourishing business and
E             many properties as admitted by him. It has now become a matter
              of routine that as and when an application for maintenance is
              filed, the non-applicant becomes poor displaying that he is not
              residing with the family members if they have a good business
              and movable and immovable properties in order to avoid payment
F             of maintenance. Couits cannot under these circumstances close
              their eyes when tricks are being played in a clever manner."
              14. Section 24 of the HM Act empowers the Court in any
      proceeding under the Act, if it appears to the Court that either the wife
      or the husband, as the case m;iy be, has no independent income sufficient
0     for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it
      may, on the application of any one of them order the other party to pay
      to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding ai1d monthly mainte!lance
      as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to
      also the ·income of both the applicant and the respondent. Heading of
      Section 24 of the Act is "Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
H     proceedings". The Section, however, does not use the word
                MANISH JAIN v. AKANKSHA JAIN                                    709
                     [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

"maintenance"; but the word "support" can be interpreted to mean as             A
Section 24 is intended to provide for maintenance pendente lite.
        15. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for cos~s of the
proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband
who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient
for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding.     B
It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and
could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents
is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of
the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether
the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support.
Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should,       c
therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum
based on various factors brought before the Court.
        16. In the present case, at the time of claiming maintenance
 pendente lite when the respondent-wife had no sufficient income capable
 of supporting herself, the High Court was justified in ordering                 D
 maintenance. However, in our view, the maintenance amount of
 Rs.60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in addition to Rs. I 0,000/- paid
--under the proceedings of the D.V. Act) appears to be on the higher side
 and in the interest of justice, the same is reduced to Rs.25,000/- per
 month. The maintenance pendente lite ofRs.25,000/- is to be paid to             E
 the respondent-wife by the appellant-husband (in addition to Rs. I0,000/-
 paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act).
        17. The order impugned herein is set aside and the appeal is
allowed. The amount ofRs.60,000/- awarded as maintenance pendente
lite is reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month which is in addition to                 F
Rs. I0,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act. The appellant-
husband is directed to pay the arrears w.e.f. 01.02.2012 till the disposal
of the divorce petition, within four weeks from today. The appellant-
husband shall continue to pay Rs.25,000/- per month in addition to
Rs. I 0,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act on or before
I O•h of every English calendar month till the disposal of the divorce           G
petition. If the appellant-husband has paid or deposited any amount of
maintenance pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 21.02.2014,
the same shall be set-off against th.e arrears to be paid by the appellant-
 husband. The respondent-wife is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if
any, deposited by the appellant-husband pursuant to the order dated
                                                                                 I-!
710                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) 3 S.C.R.


A     21.02.2014. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
      on the merits of the matter. In case the appellant-husband does not comply
      with the order, as above, including for payment of arrears, he would be
      visited with all consequences including action for contempt of Court.


      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.