http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2606 of 2004

PETITIONER: Narinder Pal kaur Chawla  

RESPONDENT: Manjeet Singh Chawla

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2004

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & D. M. Dharmadhikari.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the  respondent. We have also perused the counter affidavits and rejoinders  along with the written submissions filed by the parties.  

The present appeal arises out of an interim order dated 11.1.2002  passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the course   of proceedings instituted by the present appellant claiming to be the second  wife of the respondent for grant of maintenance to her under section 18  read with section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [for short  the Act]. The learned Single Judge on the original side of the High Court in  the pending proceeding under the Act has by order dated 11.1.2002  granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife.  

The wife appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. By order  dated 25.7.2003 which is the subject matter of this appeal, the interim  maintenance has been increased to Rs.700/- per month. Not satisfied with  the increase in the amount of interim maintenance granted by the Division  Bench, the wife has approached this Court seeking further enhancement  of  rate of interim maintenance.  

By this appeal, interim maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month has  been claimed on the ground that the respondent/husband has taken  voluntary retirement  from the Bank’s services and has received substantial  amount of retiral benefits. It is stated that he is possessed of valuable  properties and assets which are sufficient to pay higher amount of  maintenance to the wife to enable her to maintain a reasonable standard of  living to which the parties are accustomed.  

The husband is contesting the maintenance proceeding both on the  ground of competence of the present wife to claim maintenance and the  quantum.  

Normally, this Court would not have entertained this appeal as it is  directed against an order fixing only interim maintenance pending  adjudication of claim of maintenance by the wife under the Act. On the  prima facie evidence with regard to the social and financial status of the  parties, this Court finds that interim maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month  fixed by the Division Bench of the High Court is extremely low. Therefore,  after notice issuing on the Special Leave Petition, this appeal is entertained.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Before the High Court, it appears that at one stage, reconciliation  efforts were made in which the husband had agreed to provide second floor  of the accommodation owned by him for separate residence of the wife with  Rs. 1,500/- per month as permanent alimony to her during her life. Efforts  of reconciliation, however, failed as at a later stage, the wife backed out.  The copies of orders passed by the Division Bench of High Court on  13.2.2003 and 17.2.2003, in the course of reconciliation proceedings, have  been produced by the parties in this appeal.  

As the legal right of the second wife to claim maintenance under the  Act and its quantum are hotly contested issues in the main case, we refrain  from expressing any opinion on merit of the claims and contentions of the  parties. For the purpose of fixing appropriate amount of interim  maintenance, we may assume that the financial position of husband is such  that he can easily pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as interim  maintenance without disturbing the right of separate residence provided to  the wife at the second floor of the husband’s premises.  

The appeal, therefore, is partly allowed by increasing the amount of  interim maintenance to Rs. 1,500/- per month which shall be payable at the  above rate from the month of May, 2004 until decision of the main case  pending under the Act on the original side of the High Court. It is made  clear that the High Court shall decide the main case on merits uninfluenced  by orders passed for fixing interim maintenance.  

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs in this  appeal.