SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Devkishan vs Smt.Kanku on 2 May, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4920 / 2017
Devkishan S/o Sh. Sahad Ram, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste
Bairagi, Resident of Village Jawad, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur
(Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kanku W/o Devkishan, By Caste Bairagi, Resident of Jawad,
Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur, Presently Residing At Village Bilota,
Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sabir Khan
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order
02/05/2017

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.3.17

passed by the Additional District Judge, Nathdwara in Civil Misc.

Case No.40/15, whereby an application preferred by the

respondent u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the

Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the petitioner has been

directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as the maintenance

pendente lite to the respondent and further to pay a sum of

Rs.2500/- towards advocate’s fee and Rs.200/- as expenses on

each date of hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite

decree for restitution of conjugal rights being passed by the court

in his favour, there is no resumption of cohabitation between the

parties and thus, the respondent who is deliberately residing

separately is not entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel
(2 of 3)
[CW-4920/2017]

submitted that the factum of the rejection of the application

preferred by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming

maintenance by the Family Court, Rajsamand vide order dated

13.4.13 passed in Criminal Case No.385/12, has also been ignored

by the court below. Learned counsel submitted that the

respondent without any reasonable cause is not residing with the

petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance

pendente lite.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

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

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. The denial of the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

or the refusal of the wife or the husband to live together cannot be

a ground for rejection of the application seeking maintenance

pendente lite if it stands established that wife or the husband, as

the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or

his support.

5. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of

the amount of interim maintenance. It is not disputed before this
(3 of 3)
[CW-4920/2017]

court that the respondent does not have her own source of income

to maintain herself. In this view of the matter, taking into

consideration the income of the petitioner, the order impugned

passed by the court below awarding meagre amount of Rs.1500/-

as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent, cannot be faulted

with.

6. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is made out.

7. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.

(SANGEET LODHA)J.

Aditya/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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