SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gurpreet Singh vs Manjinder Kaur on 25 September, 2019

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2611/2019

Gurpreet Singh S/o Bachan Singh, Aged About 34 Years, B/c
Khatri Sikh, R/o 41 H Block, Near Nehru Park, Sriganganagar.


1. Manjinder Kaur W/o Gurpreet Singh, D/o Preetam Singh,
B/c Khatri Sikh, R/o Haal Village Balevda, Tehsil And
District Patiala.

2. Jasangel Kaur D/o Gurpreet Singh, Through Her Mother
Natural Guardian Manjinder Kaur W/o Gurpreet Singh,
D/o Preetam Singh, B/c Khatri Sikh, R/o Haal Village
Balevda, Tehsil And District Patiala.


For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia




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

the order dated 22.8.19 passed by the Family Court,

Sriganganagar in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.439/18, 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 and the appellant has been directed to pay maintenance

pendente lite a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the

respondent and her minor daughter and litigation expenses

Rs.1,000/- in lump sum.

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:39:42 PM)

(2 of 4) [CMA-2611/2019]

2. The facts relevant are that the appellant filed a petition

seeking decree of divorce against the respondent under Section 13

of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the

respondent preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act of

1955, claiming maintenance a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and

litigation expenses Rs.25,000/- in lump sum.

3. After due consideration of the material on record and rival

submissions, the Family Court determined the amount of

maintenance payable a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for the

respondent-wife and her minor daughter-Jasangel. Hence, this


4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that

the respondent is earning Rs.60,000/- per month by teaching

profession, however, this aspect of the matter has not even been

considered by the Family Court. Learned counsel submitted that as

per the income tax return of the appellant, his annual income is

about Rs.60,000/- and thus, he is not in position to pay any

amount to the respondents towards maintenance. It is submitted

that there was no evidence brought on record showing that the

appellant is earning Rs.5 lacs from business and Rs.15 lacs from

agriculture. Drawing the attention of the Court to the income tax

return, learned counsel submitted that the total income of the

appellant during the assessment year 2018-19 was Rs.57,871/-

and thus, the Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance a

sum of Rs.10,000/-per month to the respondents.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:39:42 PM)

(3 of 4) [CMA-2611/2019]

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

the amount of interim maintenance. It is not disputed that the

appellant is carrying on whole sale and retail business of inter alia

the products of Mother Dairy in the name of Dashmesh Traders, a

proprietorship concern. As per the balance sheet of the appellant’s

concern as on 31.3.18, the appellant has capital in the business

concern a sum of Rs.10,73,605.34. The gross profit of the firm

during the assessment year 2018-19 is shown to be Rs.4,49,977/-

and net profits Rs.57,871/-. That apart, other income is shown as

Rs.1,45,217/-. The appellant has claimed depreciation a sum of

Rs.54,756/-. The closing stock is shown to be of Rs.32,60,870/-.

That apart, VAT refundable is shown as Rs.6,42,328/-. Suffice it to

say that though the appellant has disclosed net profit in preceding

three assessment year around Rs.60,000/- per annum but

apparently, the appellant is earning reasonable income from

business and other sources. In this view of the matter, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the amount of maintenance

Rs.5,000/- each for the respondent and minor child determined by

the Family Court in no manner could be considered to be


(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:39:42 PM)

(4 of 4) [CMA-2611/2019]

8. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed

by the Family Court does not warrant any interference by this

Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

9. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.



(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:39:42 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (

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.


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