HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
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.