Leave Deductions Tend To Fluctuate, Can't Be Considered In Computing Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

Considering the same, the court rejected the husband's claim that his total monthly income in his income-tax documents was incorrectly calculated by the family court and that certain statutory deductions were kept into consideration while arriving at the final amount of monthly maintenance payable to the non-applicant/wife.

Essentially, the husband-applicant preferred the present application assailing the High Court's judgment which upheld the Family Court's order and enhanced the maintenance payable by the applicant to the non-applicants i.e. 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 Bhati, while dismissing the husband's application, observed,

"..it was claimed that the total monthly income of the applicant-husband was incorrectly calculated and that certain statutory deductions were kept into consideration while arriving at the final amount of monthly maintenance payable to the non-applicant/wife. However, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the applicant-husband availed certain leaves, due to which certain deductions were accordingly made from his monthly income. However, such deductions cannot become a part of the baseline in computing maintenance as, in all likelihood, the same will fluctuate over time, owing to very many reasons."

It was observed by the court that the object of granting maintenance to the wife is to ensure that the standard of living, as enjoyed by the wife during the marriage, is maintained by the husband even after the marriage ceases to exist. Such consideration is made after looking into the facts and circumstances surrounding each case, added the court.

The court opined that impugned judgment clearly reflects that the income of the wife, of about Rs. 85,000/- per months was already categorically considered during grant of maintenance. It also observed that husband's contentions that the wife is guilty of parental alienation cannot be a subject matter of the instant lis.

The court also opined that the scope of review of the judgment impugned exists and is within its jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 172, wherein Apex Court held that the bar under Section 362 CrPC is relaxed with respect to Section 125 CrPC and that a judgment passed with regard to the same, may be altered or reviewed, owing to circumstances which may have changed subsequently.

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 v. Neha Mathur & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 235