NEETA RAKESH JAINversusRAKESH JEETMAL JAIN

                  [2010] 8 S.C.R. 505


                   NEETA RAKESH JAIN                                A
                               v.
                  RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN
               (Civil Appeal No. 5660 of 2010)

                       .JULY 20, .2010
                                                                    B
          [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ;J

    Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

    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.
                                                                    E
    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.                                   ·
                                                                    F
     :Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

     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
  its very nature is temp.orary, a detailed and elaborate
0
  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 1O] [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        E
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Application No.
107/2006 in family Court Appeal No. 10 of 2006.

     Shekhar Naphade, Vinay Navare and Abha R. Sharma for
the Appellant.
                                                               F
    Pallav Shishodia, H.D. Thanvi and Sarad Kumar
Singhania for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                               G
     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The order dated September 21, 2006 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side), which
fixes the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per
                                                               H
     508     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   month pending appeal, is under challenge at the instance of the
    wife - appellant in this appeal by special leave.

        3. The parties were married on May 8, 1995. The
  respondent-husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13 (1)
  (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act')
8
  on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the wife. The
  Principal Judge, Family Court No. 5, Pune, passed an ex-parte
  decree on April 7, 2005 dissolving the marriage between the
  parties on the ground of cruelty. The wife has preferred an
C appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging the ex-parte
  decree. The appeal has been admitted. On July 18, 2005 an
  ad-interim order was gran~d staying the operation of the ex-
  parte decree. The husband was also restrained from re-
  marrying until further orders. The ad-interim .stay order is
  operative although the husband has informed the High Court
D that on July 22, 2005 he had re-married. The factum of re-
  marriage has been disputed by the wife before the High Court.

         4. The wife made an application (Civil Application No. 107
     of 2006) for direction to the husband to pay to her interim
E   maintenance of.Rs. 50,000/- per month. In that application it was
    stated that husband's income is Rs. 2,00,000/- per month
    approximately. It was stated that the husband is a highly
    qualified person; he is Chartered Accountant (CA) and has also
    passed Cost and Works Accounts of India (ICWA). He passed
F   Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), U.K.,
    examination in May, 1999 and also completed course of
    Computer Information Technology. According to wife, at the time
    of marriage the husband was working with M/s. Kalpataru
    Constructions at Mumbai drawing a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per
G   month; in 1996 he changed his job and was appointed as
    Finance Manager with M/s. Kimberly Clark, Pune (a multi-
    national comp3ny) at double the salary and in May, 1998 he
    joined a highly reputed software company, namely, Mis. Tata
    Technology on substantially increased salary. In 1999, the
H   husband was sent to Sri Lanka by the company as a Senior
  NEETA RAKESH JAIN v. RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN                  509
              [R.M. LODHA, J.]
SAP Consultant where he was entitled to a chauffeur driven          A
Toyota Van and a large bungalow to live~ He returned to Pune
in August 1999. At that time his monthly income was about Rs.
1,50,000/-. The wife averred that somewhere in the month of
January, 2000 the husband started his own company in the
name and style of M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited at Pune        B ·
and engaged several computeT and IT engineers, chartered
accountants and MBAs as employees. As regards her own
income, the wife stated that she did not have any independent
source of income and was pursuing her studies of Ph.D. at the
mercy of her elder sister who has been supporting her since         c
2001.

     5. The husband responded to the application by filing his
affidavit. Substantial part of the reply affidavit deals with the
proceedings before the Family Court. As regards his income,
                                                                    0
he stated that he joined the service with M/s. Kalpataru
Constructions as an entry level job with a total income of Rs.
7,0001- per month. According to him, his salary in Mis. Kimberly
Clark was Rs. 15,000/- per month while his salary in Mis. Tata
Technology was Rs. 20,000/- per month. He stated that having
worked for six years, he decided to start on his own and put all    E
his savings in the company - M/s. Paysquare Consultancy
Limited. He also stated that he was not the sole owner or
proprietor of the company and that from August 2005 he has
started drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the
company.                                                            F

     6. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment observed
that since an application for interim maintenance was being
considered·, it was not' inclined to deal with the submissions
advanced by the counsel for the parties on the earning capacity     G
of the husband. in extenso and accepting the husband's
statement that he was getting Rs. 30,000/- per month, fixed an
amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to
the wife.
                                                                    H
    510      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 8 S.C.R.

A       7. Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for
    maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings. It
    reads thus:-

          "S.24.- Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of
B         proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it
          appears to the court that either the wife or the husband,
          as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient
          for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the
          proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the
          husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the
c         expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the
          proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's
          own income and the income of the respondent, it may
          seem to the court to be reasonable.

D               Provided that the application for the payment of the
          expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during
          the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
          within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the
          wife or the husband, as the case may be."
E
        8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under
  the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient
  for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the
  respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may
F think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own
  income and the income of the respondent. The very 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
G wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing
  the interim 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, namely, the means of the
H
 NEETA RAKESH JAIN v. RAKESH JEETMAL JAIN                   511
             [R.M. LODHA, J.]
parties and also after taking into account incidental and other     A
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 its
very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by
the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court    B
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.

     9. In a case such as the present one, the stand of the         C
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 and has
also completed course of Computer Information Technology. He
has worked with renowned and big companies like M/s.
Kimberly Clark and M/s. Tata Technology as Finance Manager          D
and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on
his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any
compulsion but because he wanted to grow big. He has
admitted that having worked for six years, he decided to do his
own business and started the company, namely, M/s.                  E
Paysquare Consultancy Limited in which he has sought
financial/administrative help of his brother and one Ms. Nilima
Apte. How can it be believed that a person who has started
his own business leaving the job in 2000 would start drawing
the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company from          F
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. Insofar as wife is concerned, it appears that she
does not have any settled job; she has worked at few places         G
for few months. We think this is eminently a case in which the
High Court must reconsider the wife's application for interim
maintenance.

     10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, the impugned
                                                                    H
   512     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A order dated Septebmer 21, 2006 is set aside and Civil
  Application No. 107 of 2006 made by the wife for interim
  maintenance is restored to the file of the High Court for fresh
  consideration. We expect the High Court to dispose of the
  application for interim maintenance expeditrously and before
B it proceeds with the hearing of the main appeat, being Family
  Court Appeal No. 10 of 2006. The cost of the appeal)s ·
  quantified at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) which the
  respondent shall pay to the appellant within one month from
  today.

   N.J.                                  Appeal Partly allowed.