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)
