This is the judgement I was referring to...
If you are showing your salary as less due to unreasonable deductions...
Read Point no. 5 carefully.
CA/6911/2004 4/4 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6911 OF 2004
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2004
RITABEN ASHWINKUMAR PARMAR - Applicant(s)
ASHWINKUMAR MANILAL PARMAR - Opponent(s)
============================================================== Appearance :
MR. JAYESH A. DAVE for Applicant(s).
MR. H.R. PRAJAPATI for Opponent(s).
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA
Date : 10/10/2005
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)
1. The parties are heard.
2. This is an application under Section-24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim maintenance.
3. The wife has submitted that as her husband's salary is Rs.13,000/- plus, the Court be pleased to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance during pendency of the appeal. It is also submitted that the Court below, in a most cruel and indecent manner, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards permanent alimony, less realising that the interest at the present Bank's rate would be hardly Rs.150/- per month, that would be Rs.5/- per day and in a sum of Rs.5/- per day, it is impossible to maintain even a pet. It is also submitted that if Rs.5,000/- are needed and the said amount is used by the wife out of the permanent alimony, then, the total amount of permanent alimony would exhaust in six months and she would be left with nothing and will have to go for vagrancy.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband has filed an affidavit of the husband opposing the application. It is submitted in the affidavit that the gross salary is Rs.13,753.74, out of which the total deductions are Rs.7,896.94 and his take home salary is Rs.5,855.31; out of the said take home salary, he has to maintain his old and infirm father, the wife, with whom he has married after grant of decree of divorce, and the son begotten out of the second marriage.
5. Prima facie, the submission of the Counsel for the respondent-husband about the deduction of Rs.7,896.94 from the gross salary appears to be reasonable and lucrative, but, if a close scrutiny is made against the items of deductions, then, it would clearly appear that except Rs.333/- deducted towards income tax and Rs.886/- deducted towards provident fund, which are the standard deductions, all other deductions are towards the earlier loan taken by the husband or towards the interest of the loan taken by the husband. The moment a person takes a loan, then, he virtually withdraws the salary in advance and pays interest on it. The deduction from the future salary has to compensate what has been withdrawn by the husband in advance. If, out of the take home salary, the husband wants to pay for LIC premium, housing loan, supplementary loan and the loan taken from the credit society, then, he can't be allowed the luxuries to have everything in the life and say before the Court that his take home salary is so low that he can't pay reasonable amount to the wife.
6. It was submitted by the parties that on an earlier occasion, the wife had demanded a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs towards permanent alimony with an undertaking or assurance to withdraw the appeal, but, the husband only wanted to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh in lump sum. We asked Mr.Prajapati to seek further instructions from the respondent, who was present in the Court, but, the respondent says that he would prefer to pay the monthly alimony and not a sum of Rs.1.75 lakhs, as demanded by the wife.
7. Left with no choice, we grant the application with a direction that from the date of the application, the husband shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the wife towards maintenance. If the husband does not pay this amount to the wife directly or through the agency of the Court, then, the wife shall be entitled to submit an application to the employer of the husband, along with a copy of this order for making particular deductions in the salary and for paying the amount to the wife, until further orders from this Court. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
[K.M. Mehta, J.]