Vikramajit Sen, J.:— This Revision is directed against the Order of the Additional District Judge dated 12.8.2000 dismissing the Revisionist/Petitioner/Wife's application for maintenance pendente lite. A perusal of the Order shows that the principal consideration that weighed in the mind of the learned Trial Court was that the Wife has not come to the Court with clean hands and has not placed her real income though she admits that she has certain income from interest on deposits.
2. It is poignant that the learned Judge has not discussed the income of the Husband.
3. Cases where the parties disclose their actual income are extremely rare. Experience, therefore, dictates that where a decision has to be taken pertaining to the claim for maintenance, and the quantum to be granted, the safer and surer method to be employed for coming to a realistic conclusion is to look at the status of the parties, since whilst incomes can be concealed, the status is palpably evident to all concerned. If any opulent lifestyle is enjoyed by warring spouses he should not be heard to complaint or plead that he has only a meagre income. If this approach had been followed, it would have been evident that the warring spouses enjoy a affluent lifestyle. It has already been noted that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the Husband's income. While granting maintenance it is incumbent on the Court to make such monetary arrangements as would be conducive to the spouses continuing a lifestyle to which they were accustomed before the matrimonial discord. In the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been categorically pleaded that the Husband is getting a salary of US $ 72,000 per annum which is equivalent to Rs. 30,24,000/- per annum along with the perquisites. A mention is made of the receipt of interest of approximately US $ 1,000 per month as also accounts in various banks. It is pleaded that the Husband is a joint owner of properties valued at over Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. The Wife has pleaded that since 5.10.1998 she has been living at the mercy of her parents; that she has no movable or immovable properties or other assets in her name except a nominal amount of interest from deposits. It has been categorically stated that the Wife has no income to support herself and to meet her necessary expenses.
4. A miscarriage of justice has been caused by the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in that the statement pertaining to the receipt of a nominal amount of interest has been given far too much significance. The Husband has stated that the Wife had substantial interests in M/s. Sand Dues (India), Radhika Theatres and Radhika Steels Pvt. Ltd. These facts have been categorically denied. It is difficult to appreciate what else the Wife could have done since it is well nigh impossible to disprove a false allegation made without any supporting documents. After placing documents on the file certifying that the Wife had no interest in these business enterprises, the burden should have been shifted to the Husband to prove his unsubstantiated allegations. This approach has not been adopted.
5. So far as the allegations against the Husband's earnings and income are concerned it is now firmly established that every able-bodied man must be presumed to be financially productive. Keeping in view the fact that the Husband is well qualified and was gainfully employed in the United States of America, a presumption must attach to his income in that country. Judicial notice must be taken of the fact that a salary of US $ 70,000 annually is not excessive. Even if it is reduced to US $ 50,000 and 20 per cent thereof is allowed to the Wife, the annual sum of 20% converted into the Indian currency would be approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-.
6. The Wife has pleaded that she has a nominal income. The learned Trial Court has not made any query whether she is an Income-Tax assessee or not. Some efforts must be made by the Court so as to arrive at a rough and ready picture of the income of the parties. If queries had been made as to the exact figure of the so-called nominal income, and the Wife had evaded the issue, an adverse influence could have been drawn.
7. An effort should be made by the Court to arrive at its own conclusion as to what is the nominal income. Even if Rs. 5,000/- is taken as the monthly income, this would yield only Rs. 60,000/-in an year. A person belonging to the background of the parties hereto would require Rs. 20,000/- per month for meeting the normal expenditure. This sum may be wholly inadequate where the parties are Crorepatis and may be far too excessive where the salaried income is around Rs. 1,00,000/- annually. A decision has to be taken in the facts and circumstances of the each case. The case of both husband and wife should be considered.
8. Discounting all other incomes, I find that the Husband should be held to have an income of at least US $ 50,000 annually. Considering the lifestyle to which the spouses would be accustomed, and the above minimum assessment of the disposable income of the Petitioner, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court should have granted Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite. It is ordered accordingly. By adopting this approach an effort has been made to balance the income and the earnings of the Husband against the income of the Wife, and ensuring that the normal lifestyle and status can be preserved in some measure.
9. Revision Petition is disposed of in these terms.
Comments