SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay Mittal S/O Shri Ravinder … vs Smt. Sonu Goyal W/O Shri Ajay … on 22 August, 2019


D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3057/2019
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2569/2019

Ajay Mittal S/o Shri Ravinder Mittal, Aged About 41 Years, B/c
Mahajan, Resident Of 10/467, Chetna Path, Mansarovar, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj)
Smt. Sonu Goyal W/o Shri Ajay Mittal D/o Shri Ishwar Chandra
Goyal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Agarwal Mahajan, R/o Ganesh
Bhawan, Khutentaon Ka Mohalla, Chomu Jaipur Present Address
House No. 61/250, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Tehsil Sanganer,
Jaipur (Raj)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raunak Dixit




This appeal has been filed by appellant-husband aggrieved

by order of the Family Court No.3, Jaipur, dated 20.05.2019, by

which the Family Court has allowed the application of the

respondent-wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 and granted her a sum of Rs.7000/- as monthly

maintenance pendente lite.

The respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the

ground of cruelty.

Mr. Raunak Dixit, learned counsel for appellant-husband,

submitted that the Family Court has mechanically granted the

(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:43:35 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-3057/2019]

amount of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.7000/-. The

order passed by the Family Court is against the settled principle of

law. The Family Court failed to appreciate the respondent-wife

herself is graduate and also having degree of B.Ed. And she is

earning Rs.20,000/- per month by teaching work. The appellant-

husband is earning only a sum of Rs.6000/- per month, which is

very low as compared to the income of the respondent-wife, by

working with a hotel. The respondent-wife therefore does not

deserve to be granted any maintenance. The Family Court has

construed the word ‘support’ in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, in a very narrow manner. When the appellant-husband

himself does not have sufficient means of income, how possibly he

can maintain the respondent-wife. Learned counsel, in support of

his arguments, has relied on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal – 2001

(1) RCR (Civil) 588, wherein it has been held that well qualified

spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the

purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be

discouraged and that the spouses who are quarreling and coming

to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided

for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in

Nisha Jain Vs. Amit Jain dated 24.08.2016 in Matrimonial

Application (F.C.) 106/2015, wherein it has been held that

provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been

enacted to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be,

who has not independent source of income for his or her support

and to incur necessary expenses to contest the litigation, can

(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:43:35 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-3057/2019]

claim maintenance pendente lite so that proceedings may be

continued without any hardship on his/her part.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband and

perused the impugned order, we find that the respondent-wife has

alleged that the appellant-husband is having the income

approximately Rs.80,000/- per month from his Golden Crush

Restaurant. Apart from that, he also runs a business of catering.

He maintains a Honda City car. The respondent-wife demanded an

amount of Rs.40,000/- towards monthly maintenance. The

appellant-husband before the Family Court set up a case that he

does not have anything to do with the Golden Crush Restaurant.

He hardly earns a sum of Rs.6000/- per month and that the

respondent-wife is a qualified teacher having passed out B.Ed.

Course and is earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The

appellant-husband also maintained that he has already sold out

the Honda City car.

The Family Court from the rival submissions of the parties

found that though the appellant-husband has failed to prove the

income of the respondent-wife but the fact that the appellant-

husband was maintaining a car, denotes that he has a particular

standard in the society and even if the car has been sold, his

standard would be such and he is under obligation to maintain his

wife at-least by payment of a meager sum of Rs.7000/- per


The Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs.

Anil Kachwaha – (2014) 16 SCC 715 has held that merely

because wife was earning something, would not be a ground to

reject her claim for maintenance particularly when her earnings

were not placed on record. In this view of the matter, it is clear

(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:43:35 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-3057/2019]

that even if wife earns certain amount, that does not absolve the

husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of Section

24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is

accordingly dismissed.



(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:43:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation