NRI alimony & maintenance

Apart from the above-mentioned provisions, there are other legislation which provide for maintenance to members of the family and dependents like family courts act, Hindu adoptions and maintenance act, domestic violence act. Most of the Non-Resident Indians (NRI) cases relate to Hindu law (since Sikh, Buddhist, Jains are also included in the definition of Hindu). Second wife or a person in live in relationship cannot claim maintenance. However children under the age of eighteen can claim maintenance from either of their parents.

Between husband and wife, Supreme Court has held that if wife is able to earn herself and is actually earning, even then she can claim maintenance from the husband. If wife is able to earn and is not actually earning, she can definitely claim maintenance from her husband. Generally the amount of interim maintenance which is granted by the trial courts is less than one third of the salary of husband. However on revision against the order, sessions courts generally grant maintenance of about one third of the salary of the husband. This is a general phenomena and nothing sure can be said about the amount of maintenance which the court will actually impose, since it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. We have contested cases in which Non-Resident Indians (NRI) did not have to pay even a single penny the wife and we have also had cases in which the husband had to pay lakhs of rupees in maintenance. A case of maintenance is filed by either spouse wherever he or she is living (because the law allows it and also because it is more comfortable to contest litigation where a person is residing) and the other spouse has to come to that place to contest the maintenance case.

Relevant sections under which maintenance can be filed are as under:-

Section 125 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(a) ” minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) ” wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such

Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

24 Maintenance pendente 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.]

(i) As far as maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings are concerned, no distinction has been made under section 24 of the Act relating to right of a wife for maintenance preferred under section 12 or 13 of the Act;

(ii) The divorce proceeding has terminated adversely to his client but an appeal is pending. Whether the appeal ends in divorce or not, the wife’s claim for maintenance qua wife under the definition contained in the explanation (b) to section 125 of the code continues unless parties make adjustments and come to terms regarding the quantum or the right to maintenance. It is clear that mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance;

(i) During the pendency of the divorce proceedings at any point of time if the wife establishes that she has no sufficient independent income for her support, it is open to her to claim maintenance pendente lite;

(ii) Section 24 entitles not only the wife but also the husband to claim maintenance pendente lite on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood. Held that since the husband was able-bodied and was not mentally ill and only because his business had closed down, he could not be granted any maintenance, it being opposed to spirit of section 24 of the Act; Kanchan v. Kamalendra, AIR 1993 Bom 493.

(i) Pending an application either under Rule 5 of Order 9 or Rule 9 of Order 9 or Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure a spouse is entitled to maintain an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The expression “proceedings under the Act”appearing in section 24 cannot be given a narrow and restrictive meaning;

(ii) Section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself;

(iii) The direction by the Civil Court is not a final determination under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act but an order pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable;

Important judgments on maintenance and alimony are:-

Shailja v. Khobbanna, (SC) 2017 AIR (SC) 1174

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The matters have been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the High Court and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Family Court.

4. The Family Court had directed payment of maintenance for an amount of L 15,000/- per month to the appellant – wife and L 10,000/- per month to the son.

5. The High Court while considering the correctness of the order passed by the Family Court did not accept the contention of the respondent – husband that the appellant – wife was working. All that was held was that the appellant – wife was capable of earning and therefore maintenance was reduced to an amount of L 6000/- from L 15,000/- for her and L 6000/- from L 10,000/- for the son.

6. In other words, out of an amount of L 25,000/- (total) awarded by the Family Court for the appellant No.1 and the son, the High Court has reduced the amount to L 12,000/- (total).

7. We are not satisfied with the order passed by the High Court considering the income of the respondent – husband, which we have been told, is more than L 80,000/- per month since the respondent – husband is a Senior Lecturer in a college. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent – husband is also the owner of 26 acres of irrigated land.

8. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the appellant No.1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the appellant No.1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the appellant No.1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

9. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Family Court.

10. It appears that the son has now attained the age of majority. If that is so, the son will be entitled to maintenance only till the age of reaching majority.

11. Subject to the above, the order passed by the Family Court is affirmed.

12. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

Amrita Singh v. Ratan Singh, (SC) 2017 AIR (SC) 2937

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J. – Leave granted.

2. Marriage between appellant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on February 17.2006. In May, 2007, one son was born out of this wedlock. It is the case of the appellant that on account of cruel conduct of Respondent No. 1 towards her, she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home along with her child on January 04, 2008 and since she was living at her parental home and no maintenance amount was paid to her by her husband, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for herself and her minor child.

3. Both the parties led their evidence, the trial court found that Respondent No. 1 is a railway employee and is getting a salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month from the railway department. That fact is not in dispute. Keeping in view the aforesaid income of Respondent No. 1, the trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- for the appellant and Rs. 4,000/- for the child.

4. Respondent No. 1 challenged the aforesaid order by filing criminal revision petition in the High Court and the High Court has allowed the said petition thereby quashing the order of the trial court granting maintenance. The reason given by the High Court is that the appellant has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with Respondent No. 1. Entire discussion on this aspect is contained in two paragraphs which are reproduced below:

“5. The history of their marriage is that the petitioner submits that he was kidnapped for the purpose of marriage on a misconception that he was highly placed in the railway even though he belongs to parents, who come within the BPL category, and he himself was the 4th grade employee. Naturally, there was incompatibility between the spouses on account of wide economic difference between them. When the Opposite Party No. 2 left him, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Some kind of temporary arrangement was made at the behest of the Court but to no avail. In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code in which he and his father were behind the bar for a long period.

6. It appears that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with the petition. In such circumstances, evidently the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should not have been allowed by the Court below.”

5. Two aspects are mentioned in the afore-quoted portion, i.e., application of Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and filing of case by the appellant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no discussion as to how the aforesaid two cases led to the conclusion that appellant did not have any reasonable cause for leaving Respondent No. 1. That apart, in any case it is abundantly clear from the record that the position that emerges from the aforesaid proceedings would blame Respondent No. 1 and not the appellant and the finding of the High Court is palpably erroneous.

6. It would be pertinent to note that Respondent No. 1 had, after filing the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed another petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage alleging that the appellant had deserted her without any reasonable cause and also that the appellant had treated the respondent with cruelty. In defence, the appellant had pleaded that it is she who was treated with cruelty and there was demand of dowry as well.

7. It may be mentioned that in reply filed by Respondent No. 1, he had taken the plea that his wife-appellant had deserted him without any reasonable cause and he was ready to take her back even now. The rebuttal of the appellant was that she was treated with cruelty by her in-laws and there was persistent demand of dowry and she was ousted from the matrimonial home after torturing. She had even filed criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in January, 2008 in which Respondent No. 1 and his father have been found guilty and convicted for the said offence. Their appeal against the judgment of the trial court was pending before the Appellate Court. It is for this reason she had lost trust in her husband as she feared that she would be tortured again if she goes back to her matrimonial house. In essence, she pleaded that there were valid reasons for not resuming the matrimonial alliance after she was thrown out of the house. The Family Court while dismissing the petition of Respondent No. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, gave a categorical finding that it is Respondent No. 1-husband who had treated the appellant with cruelty and she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant had reasonable apprehension in not joining back the company of her husband.

8. Insofar as case under Section 498-A, IPC is concerned, as already pointed out above, Respondent-1 and his family members have been convicted by Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger vide judgment dated July 09, 2013. No doubt, Respondent No. 1 and his family members have filed appeal there against, which is pending before the appellate court. Fact remains that as per the finding of the trial court, the allegations of appellant that there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband, stands proved, as of now.

9. In view of the aforesaid material on record, the impugned order of the High Court does not stand judicial scrutiny which is not only cryptic but, in the teeth of the judicial findings, against Respondent No. 1.

10. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed thereby setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the maintenance granted by the trial court.

Appeal allowed.

Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (SC) 2017 AIR (SC) 1640

ORDER

R. Banumathi, J. – Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M.(M) No.910 of 2010. In the said judgment, the High Court while setting aside the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-II (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi who declined to award maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has granted interim maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of L 60,000/- per month to be paid by the appellant-husband Manish Jain with effect from 1st February, 2012 till the disposal of divorce petition. The said amount was fixed in addition to L 10,000/- which the appellant-husband has already been paying by way of interim maintenance as per the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short `the D.V. Act’].

3. This is a case of marital discord which has a chequered history. Brief facts leading to this appeal by way of special leave are as under:- Both the appellant and the respondent got married on 16.02.2005 and they were living at V-38, Green Park, New Delhi. The couple shifted to an accommodation at 303, SFS Apartment, Hauz Khas, New Delhi on 15.04.2007. In or about July, 2007 relationship between the parties got strained. In September, 2007 the appellant-husband filed a divorce petition HMA No.553/2007 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short `the HM Act’] seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

4. In November, 2007 the respondent-wife filed a petition under the D.V. Act along with interim relief i.e., maintenance. She also filed a complaint on 23.11.2007 under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC with CAW Cell, Amar Colony, Nanakpura, New Delhi against the appellant-husband and his family members which was later on registered as FIR bearing No.190 of 2008, Police Station, Friends Colony, New Delhi on 04.03.2008. In December, 2007, respondent filed yet another Complaint Case No.381 of 2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Mahila Court, Patiala House, New Delhi. Her interim application seeking maintenance amongst other reliefs under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi by order dated 23.04.2008 on the ground that the respondent was employed and was getting a stable income and that no document was placed on record by the respondent to show that respondent had again become jobless as the publication of the Magazine FNL had been stopped. Against the dismissal of application for maintenance, the respondent had filed appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008. In the said appeal and in Criminal Revision No.66 of 2008, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House by an order dated 01.09.2009 granted maintenance of L 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.

5. The appellant-husband filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on 22.04.2008 for grant of bail in anticipation of his likely arrest. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant-husband subject to return of Toyota Corolla and dowry/jewellery articles to the respondent-wife within a week from the date of order till the next date of hearing which is said to have been complied with. Order was also passed directing the respondent to deposit L 12,00,000/- towards alleged return of dowry articles.

6. The respondent-wife filed application under Section 24 of the HM Act claiming interim maintenance pendente lite of L 4,00,000/- per month and also a sum of L 80,000/- to meet litigation expenses during the pendency of the divorce petition. In the said application, the respondent-wife pleaded that she was having no source of income to maintain herself and that she is dependent upon others for her day to day needs and requirements. The said application was resisted by the appellant-husband contending that the respondent-wife is an educated lady and that she had completed her one year course of Fashion Designing from J.D. Institute, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and that she is capable of earning monthly salary of L 50,000/. The application filed under Section 24 of the HM Act was dismissed by Additional District Judge-II, Tis Hazari, Delhi by order dated 15.03.2010. Being aggrieved, the respondent-wife filed Crl. M.A. No.17724 of 2012 before the High Court, Delhi. The High Court in its order dated 08.11.2011 in C.M.(M) No.910 of 2010 filed by the wife against the order dated 15.03.2010 directed both the parties to file an affidavit truthfully disclosing their correct income. Both the husband and the wife filed an affidavit as to their income in compliance of the aforesaid order. After so directing the parties to file affidavit regarding their income and after referring to the income of appellant-husband and the properties which the appellant and his family are owning and also the standard of living of the respondent-wife which she is required to maintain, the High Court by the impugned order directed the appellant-husband to pay interim maintenance of L 60,000/- per month in addition to L 10,000/- which was directed to be paid to the respondent-wife in the proceedings under the D.V. Act.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant-husband came in appeal before this Court by way of special leave. After giving opportunity to the parties to work out a settlement which ultimately failed, the same was dismissed on 15.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the above petition, a review petition was filed on 13.05.2014 in which notice was issued by this Court on 06.08.2014 and on 03.02.2016 the same was allowed and the Special Leave Petition was restored to its original number which is the subject matter before us.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the respondent-wife has concealed her employment and independent source of income on several occasions throughout the matrimonial proceedings before the courts below and also that the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court under Section 24 of the HM Act. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the trial court after analysing the evidence that the wife was educated, professionally qualified in the Fashion industry and had sufficient independent income rejected the application of the wife seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the HM Act. It was submitted that the High Court without proper appreciation of the income of the parties had wrongly set aside the order of the trial Court and fixed an abnormal amount of L 60,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel further submitted that in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2008 under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act, the appellant-husband is paying an interim maintenance of L 10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband has so far made a total payment of L 7,50,000/- in the proceedings under D.V. Act, apart from returning a Toyota Corolla car worth L 13,00,000/- besides depositing a sum of L 12,00,000/- and a sum of L 2,75,000/- towards untraced admitted dowry articles in compliance with the order passed by the Court. It was further submitted that the appellant-husband’s firms/companies have been either shut down due to heavy loss and/or under the stage of winding up and the appellant-husband is not in a position to pay the exorbitant amount of L 60,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife at the outset submitted that the principle of providing maintenance is to ensure the living conditions of respondent-wife similar to that of appellant-husband whereas in the present case the respondent-wife is yet to receive any money.

10. We have heard the matter at considerable length. Parties are entangled in several rounds of litigation making allegations and counter allegations against each other. Since various proceedings are pending between the parties, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions advanced by the parties. The only question falling for consideration is whether the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite and whether the amount of L 60,000/- awarded by the High Court is on the higher side.

11. The Court exercises a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial and neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is to be guided, on sound principles of matrimonial law and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and having regard to the object of the Act. The Court would not be in a position to judge the merits of the rival contentions of the parties when deciding an application for interim alimony and would not allow its discretion to be fettered by the nature of the allegations made by them and would not examine the merits of the case. Section 24 of the HM Act lays down that in arriving at the quantum of interim maintenance to be paid by one spouse to another, the Court must have regard to the appellant’s own income and the income of the respondent.

12. At the time of filing application under Section 24 of the HM Act in December, 2007, the respondent-wife was doing her internship in fashion designing in J.D. Institute of Fashion Technology and just completed the course and was not employed at that time. Only in the month of May, 2008, she became a trainee and joined FNL Magazine of Images Group as Junior Fashion Stylist and was earning an approximate/stipend income of L 21,315/- per month and due to recession, the same is said to have been reduced to L 16,315/- for three months that is July, August and September in the year 2009. It is stated that thereafter the respondent-wife has become jobless and associated with Cosmopolitan Magazine and according to the respondent-wife, she was working as a Stylist and is paid nominal amount of L 4,500/- per shoot and the said amount is inclusive of expenses like travelling etc. On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court and also the affidavit of the respondent-wife, it is clear that the respondent-wife has no permanent source of employment and no permanent source of income.

13. Appellant-husband is stated to be a partner in the firms of his family business. It is also stated that the appellant-husband and his family own several valuable properties and has flourishing business. Insofar as the properties/income of appellant-husband, the High Court has made the following observations:-

“38. From the pleading of the respondent before other Courts, it has come on record that the respondent’s family is having successful and flourishing business of electrical and non-ferrous metals for the last 22 years. They are successful in their business. His mother belongs to a family of journalists and lawyers….

39. From the material placed on record by the petitioner, prima facie it appears to the Court that even the respondent has not made full disclosure about his income and correct status of the family in the affidavits filed by him. The statements made by him are contrary to the statement made in the bail application. Prima facie, it appears to the Court that the respondent is hiding his income by trying to show himself as a pauper, however, the documents placed on record speak differently. At the same time the family members have a reasonably flourishing business and many properties as admitted by him. It has now become a matter of routine that as and when an application for maintenance is filed, the non-applicant becomes poor displaying that he is not residing with the family members if they have a good business and movable and immovable properties in order to avoid payment of maintenance. Courts cannot under these circumstances close their eyes when tricks are being played in a clever manner.”

14. Section 24 of the HM Act empowers the Court in any proceeding under the Act, if 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 any one of them order the other party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance as may seem to be reasonable during the proceeding, having regard to also the income of both the applicant and the respondent. Heading of Section 24 of the Act is “Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings”. The Section, however, does not use the word “maintenance”; but the word “support” can be interpreted to mean as Section 24 is intended to provide for maintenance pendente lite.
15. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court.

16. In the present case, at the time of claiming maintenance pendente lite when the respondent-wife had no sufficient income capable of supporting herself, the High Court was justified in ordering maintenance. However, in our view, the maintenance amount of L 60,000/- ordered by the High Court (in addition to L 10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act) appears to be on the higher side and in the interest of justice, the same is reduced to L 25,000/- per month. The maintenance pendente lite of L 25,000/- is to be paid to the respondent-wife by the appellant-husband (in addition to L 10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act).

17. The order impugned herein is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The amount of L 60,000/- awarded as maintenance pendente lite is reduced to L 25,000/- per month which is in addition to L 10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act. The appellant-husband is directed to pay the arrears w.e.f. 01.02.2012 till the disposal of the divorce petition, within four weeks from today. The appellant-husband shall continue to pay L 25,000/- per month in addition to L 10,000/- paid under the proceedings of the D.V. Act on or before 10th of every English calendar month till the disposal of the divorce petition. If the appellant-husband has paid or deposited any amount of maintenance pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 21.02.2014, the same shall be set-off against the arrears to be paid by the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-husband pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2014. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. In case the appellant-husband does not comply with the order, as above, including for payment of arrears, he would be visited with all consequences including action for contempt of Court.