HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2019
Deepak Sankhla S/o Shri Shankarlal Ji Sankhla, Aged About 33
Years, B/c Mali, R/o Nanichi Ka Bagh, Rawati Road, Sursagar,
Jodhpur Presently R/o Sunder Nagar Colony, Naranpura Police
Chowki Ki Picche, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
—-Appellant
Versus
Laxmi @ Priyanka W/o Deepak Sankhla, Aged About 34 Years,
D/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Ji Gehlot, B/c Mali, R/o Nainchi Ka Bagh,
Rawati Road, Sursagar, Jodhpur.
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Sankhla, appellant in
person.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
17/09/2019
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 2.11.18 passed
by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Case
No.210/17, whereby an application preferred by the respondent
u/s 24 of the SectionHindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of
1955”) has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to
pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent Rs.10,000/- and
further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum as litigation
expenses.
2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 96 days,
which is accompanied by an application preferred under Section 5
of Limitation Act.
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:50:03 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-796/2019]
Explaining the delay, it is submitted by the appellant that he
is posted in the Office of the Employees Provident Fund at
Ahmedabad, which is 450 kms. away from Jodhpur. It is averred
that the appellant came to know about the order passed by the
Family Court belatedly and therefore, the delay has occurred in
filing the appeal.
The explanation furnished for inordinate delay of 96 days in
filing the appeal is not plausible and acceptable, however, in the
interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as
well.
3. The appellant submitted that he is employed in the
Employees Provident Fund Department on the post of UDC and
presently drawing net salary a sum of Rs.33,550/-. It is submitted
that he is residing at Ahmedabad in a rented premises and thus, a
sum of Rs.8,000/- per month is spent towards the rent. That
apart, the appellant is required to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to his
father towards maintenance pursuant to an order passed by the
Family Court No.1, Jodhpur in proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the respondent is employed as
Accountant and earning a sum of Rs.30,000-40,000 per month
and thus, the maintenance pendente lite determined by the Family
Court is in much higher side.
4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of
1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to
the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain
himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While
considering the application for award of interim maintenance , the
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:50:03 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-796/2019]
relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain
himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy
of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other
spouse.
5. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of
the amount of interim maintenance. It is pertinent to note that the
appellant’s gross salary is more than Rs.43,000/-, however, on
account of additional deductions of Rs.9,300/- opted by the
appellant, he is drawing salary a sum of Rs.33,500/- per month.
There was nothing brought on record by the appellant showing
that the respondent has any source of income of her own. In this
view of the matter, in these days of high inflation, the amount of
maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month determined by the
Family Court cannot be said to be higher side. The amount of
litigation expenses Rs.5,000/- in limp sum also cannot be
considered to be in higher side.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that
the order impugned passed by the Family Court does not suffer
from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this
court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
81-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 18/09/2019 at 08:50:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
