SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kapil Chaturvedi vs Smt.Sandhya Chaturvedi & Ors on 25 April, 2017

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4531 / 2017
Kapil Chaturvedi S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Chaturvedi, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident of A-87, Sector-2, Near Ramkui, Gandhi
Nagar, Tehsil District Chittorgarh.
1. Smt. Sandhya Chaturvedi W/o Shri Kapil Chaturvedi D/o Shri
Hari Shankar Chaturvedi,, Aged About 32 Years

2. Anamay Chaturvedi S/o Kapil Chaturvedi, Aged About 5 Years

3. Swasti Chaturvedi S/o Kapil Chaturvedi, Aged About 3 Years,
Respondent No. 2 3 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian
Mother Smt. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Aged About 32 Years.
All Residing At O-164, Azad Nagar, Tehsil District- Bhilwara.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjay Nahar

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.3.17

passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara, whereby an application

preferred by the respondents u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 (in short “the Act”) has been allowed and the petitioner has

been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as

maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner no.1, the wife, and

Rs.3,000/- each for two children from the date of the order, till the

disposal of the application filed by the petitioner u/s 13 of the Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the Family Court has failed to consider the material on record
(2 of 3)

objectively and the findings arrived at are ex facie perverse.

Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court has failed to

appreciate the fact that the petitioner is getting salary Rs.13,000/-

per month only and is having responsibility to care of his mother

who also resides with him. Learned counsel submitted that

apparently, the maintenance pendente lite awarded is in higher

side. Learned counsel submitted that so far as the income from

agriculture land is concerned, there are so many co-sharers and

without there being any cogent evidence on record, it could not

have been presumed that the petitioner is earning income from

the agriculture land as well. Learned counsel submitted that the

respondent is a practising advocate and she is earning

Rs.50,000/- per month, however, while passing the order

impugned, the respondent wife’s own income has not been taken

into consideration by the Family Court.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act 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

(3 of 3)

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in Mewar University,

Gangrar, Chittorgarh on the post of Store Incharge and drawing

the salary a sum of Rs.17,700/- per month. In this regard, the

salary certificate issued by the Registrar, Mewar University was

placed on record. Though, the petitioner has denied any income

from the agriculture, however, the respondent had filed on record

documents showing that the petitioner is co-sharer in six

agriculture lands out of which barring one all the lands are shown

to be irrigated land. In this view of the matter, the Family Court

has committed no error in drawing the conclusion that the

petitioner has source of income from agriculture as well. The

income of the respondent wife from the profession of advocacy is

not proved by producing any evidence on record. It is pertinent to

note that the respondent wife has responsibility to upbring two

children as well.

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

the amount of interim maintenance. In the instant case, having

regard to the income of the petitioner and on overall consideration

of the matter, the interim maintenance determined by the Family

Court for the maintenance of the respondents is just and proper

and cannot be said to be excessive in these days of high inflation.

7. No case for interference by this court in exercise of its

supervisory jurisdiction is made out.

8. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.



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