FAO No. 157 of 2018
15.11.2018 Present: Mr. Vivek Chandel, Advocate, for the appellant.
.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent.
CMP No. 7463 of 2018
During the pendency of the instant appeal before
this Court, the respondent has, through an application, cast
under the provisions of 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, sought
r to
computation of litigation expense(s), vis-à-vis, her against the
non-applicant/appellant. The learned counsel
applicant/respondent has contended, that, the non-applicant,
for the
had not preferred any applicant, under, Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned District Judge
concerned, during the pendency of the Hindu Marriage
petition, therebefore, given hers being possessed of adequate
financial means, to support herself. The learned counsel for
the non-applicant submits that the applicant/respondent, is
hence barred to claim determination of litigation expense(s),
during, the pendency of the instant appeal. However, the
aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, as this Court while
rendering a verdict, upon, CMPMO No. 367 of 2016, titled as
Balwant Singh versus Dinakshi Rana” hence thereupon, even
for want of proceedings being drawn, for, defrayment, of,
maintenance pendente lite, rather granted relief of litigation
expenses, vis-à-vis the spouse concerned, given hers/his being
dragged rather into an unnecessary litigation. Paragraph-7 of
the aforesaid CMPMO is extracted hereinafter:
“7. True it is that a sum of Rs. 3000 is on lesser
side and is not sufficient for the maintenance of the
respondent-wife. She, however, is at liberty to seek17/11/2018 22:59:38 :::HCHP
appropriate remedy for getting the same enhanced. The
petitioner-husband is also liable to maintain Master
Vidhan, their school going son The respondent is at.
liberty to initiate proceedings, in accordance with law,
to seek enhancement in maintenance against her
husband, the petitioner, however, so far as these
proceedings are concerned, in the opinion of this
Court, she is not entitled to the grant of maintenance
pendent elite, however, should have been granted only
the litigation expenses because it is her husband, the
petitioner, who has dragged her in the litigation by
filing divorce petition in the trial Court. Since Rs.
10,000/ awarded as litigation expenses to her is on
lesser side, therefore, irrespective of she has not
assailed this order coupled with the factum of she is
dragged in litigation upto this Court by filing the
present petition, the sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the
respondent towards litigation expenses is enhanced to
Rs. 20,000. The petitioner husband is directed to pay
the enhanced amount and the amount originally
awarded, if not already paid, on the next date.”
In consequence thereto, a sum ofRs. 10,000 is
assessed as litigation expenses, and, it shall be, within two
weeks, liquidated by the non-applicant to the applicant. The
application stands disposed of.
FAO No. 157 of 2018
Admit.
List for hearing on its own turn.
Copy dasti.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
November 15, 2018
(Kalpana)
17/11/2018 22:59:38 :::HCHP
.
17/11/2018 22:59:38 :::HCHP