HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 32

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. – 20 of 2020

Appellant :- Aniket Garg

Respondent :- Prachi Agarwal

Counsel for Appellant :- Daya Shanker Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Gupta

Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.

Hon’ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 10.10.2019, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No.150 of 2019, by which, application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955) filed by respondent-wife has been partly allowed awarding Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance pendente lite and Rs.30,000/- lump sum towards litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards travelling allowance for attending the court on each date.

The appellant-husband had filed petition under Section 10 of the Act, 1955, for judicial separation, which was registered as Case No.376 of 2019. During the pendency of aforesaid petition, the respondent-wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, claiming Rs.55,000/- for Advocate-fee, Rs.2,000/- for travelling allowance to attend the court on each date and Rs.2,000/- for travelling expenses to attend the court on the date fixed and Rs.50,000/- per month for maintenance pendente lite.

It is alleged by the respondent-wife that husband-appellant is working on the post of Manager in Cannon Company, Gurgram and getting salary of Rs.14,00,000/- per annum, but he never paid any amount to her regarding maintenance.

The appellant-husband had filed objection to the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, denying the allegations of respondent-wife and it has been stated that his wife having independent source of income and is able to maintain herself. It has further been stated by the appellant-husband that she is a working-lady engaged in Deloite Consulting India Pvt.Ltd. and her salary is Rs.65,000/- per month.

The learned Family Court, after considering the rival submissions advanced by the parties, had awarded Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite, Rs.30,000/- lump sum towards litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards travelling expenses to attend the court on each date.

Heard Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Shri D.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the record.

It is provided under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 that if either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent and sufficient income to meet out the expenses of the proceedings, they can claim monthly maintenance and litigation expenses from his/her spouse during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced herein below:

24. Maintenace pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to be court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:

[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.]

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it transpires that either wife or the husband, who have no independent income, can move an application for claiming maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses during the pendency of proceedings pending under the Act, 1955. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the respondent-wife is working in Deloite Consulting India Pvt.Ltd. and getting salary of Rs.63,000/- per month.

The court-below, after considering the status of the husband and considering the fact that being husband he is liable to maintain his wife in any circumstance, had passed the order dated 10.10.2019, which is impugned in the present appeal.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent-wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance as she, herself, is a working-lady and receiving a salary of Rs.63,000/- per month. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the income of the appellant-husband is more than Rs.14,00,000/- per annum and the order dated 10.10.2019 has rightly been passed by the learned court-below.

Considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the facts and circumstances of case as discussed above, we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-husband.

In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing monthly interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- awarded by learned Family Court to Rs.5,000/-. The judgment and order dated 10.10.2019, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No.150 of 2019 is modified to the aforesaid extent and rest part of the judgment of learned Family Court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 27.2.2020

LN Tripathi