HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2297/2018
Lalit Kumar S/o Laveji Ram Bunkar, Aged About 31 Years, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Mandar, Tehsil Revdar, District Sirohi.
Smt. Priyanka Parmar W/o Lalit Kumar, D/o Ramsi Ram, Aged
About 29 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Mandar. At Present Residing
At Village Jujapura, P.s. Mandar, District Sirohi.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Surana
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.4.18 passed
by the Family Court, Sirohi, in Family Original Case No.145/17,
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.15,000/- per month as the maintenance pendente lite to the
respondent and further to pay a sum of Rs.600/- as travelling
expenses on each date of hearing and Rs.5,000/- lump sum
towards the proceedings expenses.
2. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation by 60 days, is
accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
The only explanation for delay in filing the appeal furnished by the
appellant is that a false FIR was lodged against him and for this
(2 of 3) [CMA-2297/2018]
reason, police was harassing him and therefore, he could not file
the appeal within limitation. Learned counsel submitted that on
this court passing the order dated 13.7.18 in proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. not to take coercive action against the
appellant, he came to Jodhpur and filed the appeal. In the
considered opinion of this court, the explanation furnished by the
appellant for delay in filing the appeal is not plausible and
therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by
limitation. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined
the matter on merits as well.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
respondent has deserted the appellant without any justifiable
reason and she is living separately at Bangalore on her own
volition and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is living at Bombay
where the cost of living is very high, that apart, he is required to
maintain his parents and other family members and thus, the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court is absolutely
4. 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
(3 of 3) [CMA-2297/2018]
of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other
5. The desertion of the appellant by the respondent as alleged
cannot be a ground for denial of maintenance pendente lite. It is
not the case of the appellant before this court that respondent is
gainfully employed. Admittedly, the appellant is employed as
Assistant Engineer in MTNL and drawing the salary a sum of
Rs.1,20,000/- inclusive of allowances.
6. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
order impugned passed by the Family Court, directing payment of
maintenance pendente lite and other expenses as aforesaid,
cannot be said to be in the higher side so as to warrant
interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)