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/