SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kundan Singh S/O Shri Amar Singh vs Smt. Shivani Kanwar W/O Shri … on 17 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4321/2019

Kundan Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Plot No. 61, Pawanpuri, Benar Road, Jhotwara,
Jaipur
—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shivani Kanwar W/o Shri Kundan Singh D/o Late Shri
Mangaig Singh, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Rajput R/o Luhakana
Kalan, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj)
—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Ratnawat
For Respondent(s) :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

17/09/2019

Application (I.A. No.1728/2019) under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation

of delay of 105 days in filing of the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed. Delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

This appeal has been filed against the order of Family Court

No.3, Jaipur dated 13.03.2019, whereby, the Family Court allowed

the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(for short “the Act”) filed by the respondent-wife and directed the

appellant-husband to pay her a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as

maintenance pendente lite. The matter is pending before the

Family Court on petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of

(Downloaded on 19/09/2019 at 09:12:51 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-4321/2019]

the Act seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty,

adultery and desertion.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family

Court has erred in law in directing the appellant to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- as maintenance, whereas, according to the salary slip

of the appellant, which is produced before the Family Court by the

appellant, his monthly income is only Rs.8,358/- per month. He is

working on the post of Helper in Om Toyota Compnay. It is argued

that there are allegations of adultery on the respondent and

therefore the Family Court ought not to have directed the

appellant to pay the maintenance of this much amount.

It is submitted that allegations of the respondent that the

appellant is earning from the partnership firm in the name and

style of Devika Chemicals and Minerals, is factually incorrect, as

the said firm is closed down in March, 2018. In any case, the

amount of Rs.5,000/-, according to learned counsel for the

appellant is excessive considering the meager income of

Rs.8,358/- of the appellant.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the impugned order.

The Family Court apart from taking into consideration the

salary slip of the appellant as also the fact that the respondent

produced the documents of GST file of the appellant, as against

this, the appellant failed to produce any proof of close of firm, has

observed that divorce petition is filed on the ground of adultery

may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding maintenance

pendente lite by the Family Court. The law is settled that not only

the appellant has legal, but moral obligation to maintain his wife.

The amount of Rs.5,000/- cannot be said to excessive and

(Downloaded on 19/09/2019 at 09:12:51 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-4321/2019]

enormous so as to warrant interference by this court. However, at

this stage learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

respondent shall file her written statement to the divorce petition

and the hearing of the petition may be expedited. Having regard

to the facts aforesaid, we direct that if the appellant concludes his

evidence within three months from the next date fixed before the

learned Family Court, the Family Court shall allow three months

time to the respondent to produce her evidence and Family Court

shall make endeavour to decide the main petition itself within six

months from the date of completion of the evidence of appellant-

husband.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

Manish/Ravi Sharma/S-77

(Downloaded on 19/09/2019 at 09:12:51 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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