SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lalit Kumar vs Priyanka Parmar on 19 November, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.

—-Appellant
Versus
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.

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Surana

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

19/11/2018

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

unjustified.

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

spouse.

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

Aditya/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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