206
CMM-183-2015 in
FAO-M-447-2015
SULEKH LATA VERSUS RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate
for the non-applicant/respondent.
****
This order will dispose of an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the applicant-appellant/wife, for grant of
pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses claiming that she has got
no movable or immovable property and has no source of income to maintain
herself as well as her minor daughters Samriti Thakur and Ananya Thakur,
aged 11 and 7 years respectively, both students, whereas the respondent is
serving in Indian Army, earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month as salary
besides having moveable and immovable properties. A similar application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed before the trial Court, was
not allowed for the reason that the applicant-appellant/wife had got a sum of
Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance qua her maintenance as well as
maintenance towards her minor daughters under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She has
claimed litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- as well.
Counsel for the respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the
application on the ground that similar application had been dismissed before
the trial Court and therefore, applicant-appellant was not entitled to any relief
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in this appeal as well. Besides,
he has made available on record a copy of pension payment order issued
by the office of Principal CDA (Pensions), Allahabad indicating that the
1 of 3
09-09-2017 09:41:04 :::
CMM-183-2015 in -2-
FAO-M-447-2015
respondent-husband has retired on 28.02.2016 and is getting pension with
effect from 01.03.2016. The said document further indicates the dearness
allowance to the tune of Rs.19290/- besides emoluments for pension at
Rs.16,410/- had been sanctioned to the respondent-husband with effect from
01.03.2016. The residual pension per month is shown to be Rs.8205/- per
month. The respondent has also been paid net death-cum-retirement gratuity
of Rs.4,58,020/-. In view of the matrimonial dispute, it appears that family
pension has not been notified in the said document.
We have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances
of the case and we are of the opinion that since the appellant-wife has been
residing separately prior to 2012, when the respondent had filed petition for
divorce against her and no document has been placed on record to show that
she has got any source of income to maintain herself and her minor
daughters, she is held entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act besides litigation expenses in this appeal. She has
been contesting the divorce petition filed against her by the respondent with
effect from 10.05.2012. A sum of Rs.12,000/- per month is held to be a
reasonable amount to be paid to the appellant-wife with effect from the date
of application i.e. November to 28.02.2016, the date of retirement of the
respondent-husband. The appellant-wife will be entitled to a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from 01.03.2016 during the pendency of the
appeal. A sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses is held to be payable by
the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. A sum of Rs.20,000/- already
paid will be deducted from the said amount of litigation expenses.
It is made clear that if the respondent-husband has paid any
amount towards the maintenance determined under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the
2 of 3
09-09-2017 09:41:05 :::
CMM-183-2015 in -3-
FAO-M-447-2015
said amount will be adjustable against the amount determined by this Court
for payment from the above said arrears of maintenance pendente lite.
The application is allowed in the above terms.
For payment of entire arrears of maintenance pendente lite
calculated till 31.10.2017, as well as litigation expenses, to come up on
16.11.2017.
The entire balance amount calculated will be paid in the Court
on the next date of hearing in the shape of bank draft in the name of
appellant-wife.
The probability of amicable settlement will be considered on the
next date of hearing.
[ M.M.S. BEDI ]
JUDGE
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
JUDGE
August 30, 2017
sachin
3 of 3
09-09-2017 09:41:05 :::