Holiday deductions tend to fluctuate, cannot be taken into account when calculating maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan Supreme Court has held that deductions from the husband’s monthly income due to certain vacation days taken by him cannot form part of the basis for calculating alimony under Section 125 CrPC as these are likely to fluctuate over time .

In view of the foregoing, the court dismissed the husband’s contention that his total monthly income in his income tax records had been miscalculated by the family court and that certain statutory deductions had been taken into account in determining the final monthly alimony -applicant/wife.

In essence, the claimant husband preferred the present application, which challenged the High Court ruling which upheld the Family Court order and increased the alimony payable by the claimant to the non-claimants, ie from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- to the wife and from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- to their minor son.

dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhatiwhile dismissing the husband’s lawsuit, noted

“…it was alleged that the applicant husband’s total monthly income had been miscalculated and that certain statutory deductions had been taken into account when determining the final monthly alimony payable to the non-applicant/wife. However, this cannot be accepted as the applicant husband has taken certain vacation days, due to which certain deductions have been made from his monthly income accordingly. However, such deductions cannot become part of the baseline in computer maintenance, as these are likely to vary over time for a great many reasons.

The court found that the purpose of granting alimony to the wife is to ensure that the standard of living enjoyed by the wife during the marriage is maintained by the husband after the marriage has ended. Such an examination comes after examining the facts and circumstances in each case, the court added.

The Court held that the judgment under appeal clearly reflected that the wife’s income of approximately Rs. 85,000 per month. have already been categorically taken into account when granting maintenance. It also found that the husband’s allegation that the wife was guilty of parental alienation could not be the subject of the present lawsuit.

The court also held that there was scope for review of the judgment under appeal and that it was within its jurisdiction. It was based on trust Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 172in which the Apex Court ruled that the barrier under Section 362 CrPC is relaxed in relation to Section 125 CrPC and that a judgment made thereon may be amended or reviewed in light of circumstances that may later have changed.

Adv. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. Rosemary Raju and Adv. Pushkar Taimni appeared for the applicant while Adv. Parvej Moyal appeared for the respondents.

Case title: dr Arvind Kishore vs. Neha Mathur & Anr.

Citation: 2022 Live Law (Raj) 235

Click here to read/download the order

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *