SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ghewar Ram vs Guddi on 3 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1945/2019

Ghewar Ram S/o Shri Multanaram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Mayla House, Udai Nagar Deshnok, Tehsil Lohawat, District
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

—-Appellant
Versus
Guddi W/o Ghewar Ram, D/o Sriram, B/c Jat, R/o Village –

Kharia, Post-Ridmalsar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.R.Chahar

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

03/10/2019

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of

the order dated 15.4.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur

in Civil Original Case No.20/17, whereby an application preferred

by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed. The appellant

has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite a sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent.

2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking

divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955.

During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an

application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming

maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month, Rs.5,000/- towards house rent,

(Downloaded on 04/10/2019 at 08:38:09 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-1945/2019]

Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards ‘to

and fro’ expenses to attend each date of hearing. The respondent

averred in the application that she has no source of income

whereas, the appellant is having 25 bighas irrigated land and 195

bighas other agriculture land, wherefrom he is earning Rs.5 lacs

and Rs.40-45 lacs per annum respectively.

3. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Family

Court determined the maintenance pendente lite payable by the

appellant to the respondent as Rs.5,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that

the respondent has left the company of the appellant on her own

volition and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is

submitted that the appellant is a religious person, who has left his

house after his disturbed marital life and presently, he is staying in

a temple as saint and has no source of income whatsoever.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

6. 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 independent income of his

own sufficient for her or his support 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.

7. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not disputed the

factum of his being khatedar tenant of 25 bighas irrigated land and

195 bighas other agriculture land. It is true that there was no

(Downloaded on 04/10/2019 at 08:38:09 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-1945/2019]

cogent evidence brought on record regarding actual income of the

appellant but obviously, the appellant having huge agriculture

land, must be earning a reasonable income. The respondent

having left the company of the appellant on her own volition,

cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance pendente lite.

Admittedly, nothing was brought on record to show that the

respondent has her own source of income.

8. Thus, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the

order impugned passed by the Family Court determining a meagre

amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance pendente lite payable to the

respondent by the appellant cannot be said to be excessive so as

to warrant interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

9. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
27-Aditya/-

(Downloaded on 04/10/2019 at 08:38:09 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

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