REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    5660    OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007)

Neeta Rakesh Jain …. Appellant

Vs.

Rakesh Jeetmal Jain ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.M.LODHA,J.

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 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’) 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 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 granted 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  

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 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  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 month; in 1996 he changed his job and was appointed as Finance  

Manager with M/s. Kimberly Clark, Pune (a multi-national company)  

at  double the salary and in May,  1998 he joined a highly reputed  

software company,  namely,  M/s.  Tata  Technology on substantially  

increased salary.  In 1999, the husband was sent to Sri Lanka by the  

company as a Senior  SAP Consultant  where he was entitled to a  

chauffeur  driven  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 and  

engaged several computer 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 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,  he  

stated that he joined the service with M/s. Kalpataru Constructions as  

an  entry  level  job  with  a  total  income  of  Rs.  7,000/-  per  month.  

According to him, his salary in M/s. Kimberly Clark was Rs. 15,000/-  

per month while his salary in M/s. 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  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.  

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 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.   

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 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  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.

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.”    

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  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  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 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  temporary,   a  

detailed and elaborate 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.     

9. In a case such as the present one, 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 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  

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.  

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  

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 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  

order dated September 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  

expeditiously  and before  it  proceeds with  the  hearing  of  the  main  

appeal, being Family Court Appeal No. 10 of 2006.  The cost of the  

appeal is quantified at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) which  

the  respondent  shall  pay  to  the  appellant  within  one  month  from  

today.   

………………………J.    [AFTAB ALAM]

……………………….J.    [R.M. LODHA]

New Delhi, July 20, 2010.