HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3057/2019
With
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)
—-Appellant
Versus
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)
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raunak Dixit
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
22/08/2019
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
month.
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.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//17
(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 10:43:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)