HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 193/2019
Kaluram S/o Chelaram, Aged About 53 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Gram
Khejarla, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.
—-Appellant
Versus
Saroj @ Guddi W/o Shri Kaluram, Aged About 35 Years, D/o Sh.
Gordhanram, B/c Jat, R/o Village Bakaliya, Tehsil Pipar, District
Jodhpur.
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Veer Aditya Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/02/2019
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.11.18 passed
by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, in Civil Misc. Application
No.359/18, 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 a sum of Rs.5000/- per month as the maintenance pendente
lite to the respondent and further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in
lump sum as litigation and travelling expenses.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without
ascertaining the correct factual position regarding the source of
income of the respondent, the Family Court has seriously erred in
awarding interim maintenance a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to
the respondent, stating that the appellant-husband has the
(2 of 3) [CMA-193/2019]
responsibility to maintain the respondent-wife. Learned counsel
submitted that the respondent deliberately left the matrimonial
home without any justifiable reason and therefore, she is not
entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel submitted that the
appellant is a poor agriculturist and without there being any
cogent evidence regarding his source of income, the amount of
maintenance awarded is in much higher side. Learned counsel
submitted that order passed by the Family Court is ex facie non
speaking order.
3. 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.
4. 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 is a poor agriculturist but the factum
of the appellant earning a reasonable income from agriculture and
livestock breeding, cannot be denied. Thus, on the overall
consideration of the matter, the interim maintenance a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month determined by the Family Court, while
permitting adjustment of the amount of maintenance awarded in
favour of the respondent in other proceedings, cannot be said to
(3 of 3) [CMA-193/2019]
be in higher side. The wife leaving the matrimonial home without
justifiable reason cannot be a ground for denying maintenance
pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955.
5. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this
court, 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.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The stay
petition also stands disposed of.
(SANGEET LODHA),J
(DINESH MEHTA),J
59-Aditya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
