HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 207/2020
Jitendar Kumar Balecha S/o Sh. Kailash Ratan Modi, Aged About
33 Years, B/c Balecha, R/o Shanti Bal Niketan, Gangashahar,
Bikaner.
—-Appellant
Versus
Chitra Arora W/o Jitendra Kumar Balecha, D/o Lt. Ashok Kumar
Jasusa, Behind Raj Vilas Colony, Bikaner.
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Acharya
For Respondent(s) :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
22/01/2020
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of
the order dated 6.12.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner
in Civil Misc. Petition No.83/18 (CIS No.477/18), 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 is directed to pay maintenance pendente
lite to the respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period from
27.8.18 to 30.11.19 and further to pay Rs.10,000/- per month
w.e.f. 1.12.19.
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
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:46:49 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-207/2020]
application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming
maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month, litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- and
Rs.500/- for attending each date of hearing before the Family
Court.
3. The respondent averred in the application that she has no
source of income, whereas the appellant has various sources of
income. It was averred that the appellant is running a school,
wherein 1100 students are studying. That apart, he is also earning
from E-mitra kiosk being operated by him. According to the
respondent, the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per
month.
4. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply
thereto, taking the stand that he has no source of income and he
is totally dependent on his father.
5. On the basis of the material on record, the Family Court
arrived at the finding that respondent is working as Teacher in
Shanti Bal Niketan School. The Family Court opined that as a
Teacher, the appellant must be earning minimum 1,000/- per day
and thus, he has minimum income of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the maintenance pendente lite payable by the
appellant for the respondent herself and her minor daughter has
been determined by the Family Court as Rs.10,000/- per month.
Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly not
disputed that the appellant is working as Teacher in a private
school, however, it is submitted that his monthly salary is much
less than the salary determined by the Family Court. It is
submitted that the respondent-wife has left the company of the
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:46:49 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-207/2020]
appellant without any reason and therefore, she is not entitled to
claim any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
and perused the material on record.
8. 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. However, n o hard and fast rule can
be laid down for determination of the amount of interim
maintenance.
9. It is pertinent to note that before the Family Court, the
respondent had taken the stand that he had no source of income
and he is dependent upon his father whereas, before this Court it
is not disputed that the appellant is working as Teacher in a private
school. Though, it is stated that the appellant is not earning
Rs.30,000/- per month as determined by the Family Court but, the
appellant has not fairly disclosed his actual monthly salary. It is
true that the income of the appellant from various sources as
pleaded was not established by any cogent evidence on record, but
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion
drawn by the Family Court regarding the income of the appellant
keeping in view the job wherein he is engaged, cannot be said to
be capricious or perverse. The respondent deserting the appellant
cannot be a ground for denying maintenance under Section 24 of
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:46:49 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-207/2020]
the Act. The respondent has responsibility to maintain her minor
daughter as well and thus, the amount of maintenance payable by
the appellant to the respondent during the pendency of the
petition a sum of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive.
Further, it is noticed that instead of awarding maintenance for the
period from 27.8.18 to 30.11.19 @ Rs.10,000/- per month, only
Rs.50,000/- lump sum has been awarded and no amount has been
awarded for litigation expenses.
10. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by us in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction is made out.
11. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
31-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:46:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)