HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2965/2018

Indra Ram @ Shravan Ram S/o Rakha Ram, Aged About 25
Years, B/c Meghwal, Occupation Labour, R/o Indra Colony, Pipar
City, Dist. Jodhpur.

—-Appellant
Versus
Raji Devi W/o Indra Ram @ Shravan Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
B/c Meghwal, Occupation Labour, R/o Pipar City. At Present
Siyara, Teh. Pipar City, Dist. Jodhpur. (Raj.)

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S.Balot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Gaur for Mr. R.S.Choudhary

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

12/03/2019

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12.7.18 passed

by the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur, in Civil Misc. Application

No.58/17, 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 appellant has been directed to pay

maintenance pendente lite to the respondent for herself and her

minor daughter a sum of Rs.2,500/- each per month and further

to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum as litigation expenses and

Rs.500/- towards to and fro expenses on each date of hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

respondent is already being paid maintenance a sum of Rs.1,000/-

for herself and Rs.500/- for the minor daughter pursuant to order
(2 of 3) [CMA-2965/2018]

dated 2.5.17 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City in

proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the

Act of 2005”) and therefore, the Family Court was not justified in

directing payment of further maintenance to the respondent.

Learned counsel submitted that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded

towards litigation expenses is also excessive. It is submitted that

the appellant has no source of income and therefore, without

ascertaining the income of the appellant, order impugned passed

directing payment of maintenance to the respondent is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent

while supporting the order passed by the Family Court, submitted

that as a matter of fact, the amount of maintenance determined

by the Family Court is too meagre and deserves to be enhanced.

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.

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

the amount of interim maintenance. Though, the appellant has

attempted to project that he has no source of income but it has

come on record that as a labourer, he is earning a sum of Rs.600/-

(3 of 3) [CMA-2965/2018]

per day. Thus, on the overall consideration of the matter, the

interim maintenance a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month each for the

respondent herself and her minor daughter, determined by the

Family Court, cannot be said to be in higher side. While passing

the order as aforesaid, the Family Court has specifically ordered

that if the respondent is receiving any maintenance in any other

proceedings, the same shall be adjusted against the maintenance

to be paid in terms of the order impugned and thus, nothing turns

on the question that the order granting maintenance has also

been passed by the Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under

the Act of 2005. The lump sum litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-

awarded also cannot be said to be excessive.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that

the order impugned passed by the Family Court does not suffer

from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this

court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
26-Aditya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)