Bijoi Chhetri vs Mrs Sunita Chhetri And Another on 12 June, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
U

NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No. 367 of 2015

Bijoi Chhetri …………..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Sunita Chhetri Another ………. Respondents

Present: Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
None is present for the respondents.

Coram:- Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
U U

U Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. U

Reserved on: 02.06.2017
Delivered on: 12.06.2017

Per – Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
U U

This is an appeal preferred by the husband, who is a
defendant in the proceedings under Section 13 r/w Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, by the order under challenge in appeal
dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Family Court, Dehradun in Suit
No.45 of 2013, “Mrs. Sunita Chhetri vs. Mr. Bijoi Chehetri.”

The learned Family Court, while exercising powers
under Section 24 had partly allowed the application of the
plaintiff/respondent whereby has awarded a pendente lite
maintenance for the plaintiff (wife) and minor son (Aayusman) a
sum of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation
expenses, hence the appeal by the husband.

During the pendency of the proceedings under
Section 13 filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of
marriage said to have been solemnized on 29.03.2009, at
Dehradun, on the ground that the matrimony between the parties
2

to the Suit No.45 of 2011, was a consequence of concealment
and distortion of facts about the age and qualification of
husband, however, the controversy therein is not relevant at
present juncture as the appeal from order is confined to the order
of maintenance under Section 24, while the principal
proceedings under Section 13 was pending, the
plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Section 24
contending that looking to the pathetic financial condition of
hers, she is unable to maintain herself and her son (Aayusman)
and as such she has claimed for a grant of maintenance pendente
lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground
taken was that being the father, the defendant/appellant herein
was liable to maintain his son as well as the wife for which she
contended that the appellant-husband is working in Kuwait and
has an earning of Rs.1,50,000/- per month, as such she has
claimed a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself, Rs.25,000/-
for her son and Rs.50,000/- for the litigation expenses. She
contended that because of there being no source of earning, she
and her family consisting of her only son is on the verge of
starvation.

To this application and objection was filed by the
appellant herein contended that he had never gone to Kuwait for
a personal employment, but rather he had visited Kuwait
because his brother was working their and was assisting his
brother as a coordinator and in lieu thereof, he use to receive a
sum of Rs. 22,800/- only. He further contended although without
any evidence on record that the respondent (wife) is not entitle
for any maintenance under Section 24, because she is a teacher
3

in a private school called as Flower Dale School, situated at
53-A, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun.

On the exchange of pleadings, the learned Family
Court by the judgment dated 07.12.2013, had awarded
maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month for mother and son and
Rs.10,000/- for the litigation expenses. Hence, the instant
Appeal from Order under Section 19 r/w Section 24, on reading
of the order, the learned Family Court after taking into
consideration, the entire facts and the paramount fact to the
effect that it is the responsibility of the father to take care of his
son, the legal implication which flows that since it was the
responsibility casted on the husband to maintain his son and
wife, the amount which was awarded was on a too meager side.

The learned Family Court, while parting with a
judgment took into consideration that the plea of the appellant
(husband) that the respondent (wife) is working as a teacher,
hence she is not entitled to any maintenance is misconceived, for
the reason, that there had been no evidence brought by the
husband on record to proof that the wife was working in a
institution rather to the contrary, it was held that the respondent
is an educated lady, unemployed.

Looking to the aforesaid backdrop, the award of
maintenance by the learned Family Court, Dehradun, since it
involves the maintenance of the wife and her school going son as
well as looking to the present price index, the amount of
maintenance as well as the litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/- per
month and Rs.10,000/- lump-sum has been rightly awarded and
the judgment impugned suffers from no anomaly. Hence, the
appeal from order is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to
4

the Family Court to decide the principal Suit No.45 of 2011,
“Mrs. Sunita Chhetri vs. Mr. Bijoi Chehetri,” filed under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, preferably within a period of nine
months from today, in the light of the provisions contained under
Section 21 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, J.)
12.06.2017

A.kaur

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *