SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Sankhla vs Laxmi @ Priyanka on 17 September, 2019

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)

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