SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Balwant Singh vs "7. True It Is That A Sum Of Rs. 3000 … on 16 November, 2018

FAO No. 157 of 2018

15.11.2018 Present: Mr. Vivek Chandel, Advocate, for the appellant.


Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the


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 seek

17/11/2018 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


List for hearing on its own turn.

Copy dasti.

(Sureshwar Thakur)
November 15, 2018

17/11/2018 22:59:38 :::HCHP

17/11/2018 22:59:38 :::HCHP

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