Pardeep Kumar vs Meena Kumari on 7 September, 2017

229

CMM-62-2016 and
FAO-M-278-2015

PARDEEP KUMAR VS. MEENA KUMARI

Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Karan Chaudhary, Advocate
for the respondent.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his divorce petition, the husband

has preferred this appeal.

During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the respondent-wife claiming that the

appellant-husband is working in Army but counsel for the appellant-husband

informs that after having been discharged from service as Lance Naik in Assam

Rifles, he is at present working as a private Security Guard in Jharkhand and is

earning only a sum of `20,000/- per month. After deduction, the actual amount

received is claimed to be `17,800/- per month.

On asking of the Court, it has been informed that a sum of

`2,500/- had been awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It has also been informed that an amount `6,000/- per month was awarded by

the Judicial Magistrate which fact is not known to the counsel for the appellant.

After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case, we are of the opinion that the appellant is a healthy person capable of

earning, liable to maintain his wife till divorce is granted. He has admitted his

income to the extent of `20,000/- but has not disclosed whether any pension has

been granted to him or not. Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted

1 of 2
16-09-2017 06:04:21 :::
CMM-62-2016 and FAO-M-278-2015 -2-

that only a sum of `1,25,000/- was given to the appellant has terminal benefits

after his 16 years of service.

Without entering into the controversy regarding the actual income

of the appellant or his capability to earn on the basis of his experience, we are of

the considered opinion that a sum of `6,500/- will be a reasonable amount as

maintenance pendente lite payable from the date of application and a sum of

`40,000/- as litigation expenses is held to be reasonable amount. A sum of

`25,000/- if already paid towards litigation expenses will be deductible from the

said amount of `40,000/-. If any other amount has been paid in proceeding

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the appellant to his wife, that would be deductible

from the arrears of maintenance pendente lite. Remaining balance will be paid

in the Court along with balance of litigation expenses on 06.12.2017 as

calculated till 30th of November, 2017.

We have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the

appellant that the appellant is looking after his old parents. We recognise the

said obligation but that will not override the rights of applicant-wife under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is

allowed accordingly.

After the amount is paid, the appeal may be taken up for final

disposal in the month of December, 2017 itself.

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

September 7th, 2017 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
Puneet JUDGE

2 of 2
16-09-2017 06:04:22 :::

Leave a Comment

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