Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK KUMAR VERMA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2021
21ST JUNE, 2021
Santosh Singh Airi ……Appellant.
Smt. Sunita Aithani ….Respondent
Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned proxy
counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma,
Counsel for the respondent: None.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The appellant has challenged the legality of the
order dated 08.04.2021, passed by the Family Court,
Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the learned
Family Court has granted a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per
month to the respondent, wife.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant
(husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on
07.03.2019 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On
16.11.2020, they were blessed with a son. However,
according to the respondent (wife), she was not only
physically and mentally tortured for dowry, but also on
03.08.2020, she was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial
house. Since then, she has been living with her widowed
mother. Meanwhile, the appellant (husband) has filed a
divorce petition against the respondent (wife). Moreover,
since the respondent (wife) is living with her mother, she is
not in a position to look-after either herself, or her small
child. Therefore, the respondent had filed an Application
maintenance pendente lite.
3. By the impugned order dated 08.04.2021, the
learned Family Court has granted the maintenance as
aforementioned. Hence, this Appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submit that
since the respondent (wife) has filed a criminal case against
the appellant (husband), and has informed his employer.
Thereafter, the employer is threatening to dismiss him from
the service. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
appellant, the appellant is not in a position to maintain his
wife and the child. Moreover, according to him, the
respondent (wife) is able to take a job for herself. Hence,
according to the learned counsel, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and
perused the impugned order.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly
reveals that the learned Court has noticed the fact that the
appellant (husband) is earning Rs. 58,000/- per month.
Moreover, even if the appellant (husband) were to lose the
job, even then he is legally duty bound to maintain his wife
and the child. Moreover, there is no evidence to show the fact
that the respondent (wife) was ever employed, or at present
she has any job in her hand.
7. Considering the fact that the appellant (husband) is
earning Rs. 58,000/- per month, and considering the fact that
it is his legal duty to maintain his wife and the child, the grant
of the maintenance of merely Rs. 6,000/- per month is
certainly not an unreasonable amount.
8. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not
find any merit in the present Appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.
10. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also
11. No order as to costs.
(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)
(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)
Dated: 21st June, 2021