HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4588/2019
Mithun Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of 34, Aravali Vihar , Canal Road,
Borkheda, Kota (Raj)
—-Appellant
Versus
Mamta Sharma W/o Sh. Mithun Kumar Sharma D/o Shri Heeralal
Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Ratanpur,
Tehsil Kher, District Aligarh (U.p.)
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naseemuddin Qazi
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
02/01/2020
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of
the order dated 22.7.19 passed by the Family Court No.3, Kota in
HMA Case No.11/19, whereby an application preferred by the
respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the appellant is
directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a
sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, litigation expenses Rs.4,000/- in
lump sum and Rs.1,000/- for attending each date of hearing.
2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking
divorce under the provisions of Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1955.
During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an
application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming
maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:44:18 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-4588/2019]
Rs.10,000/- per month, legal expenses Rs.15,000/- and travelling
expenses to attend the each date of hearing a sum of Rs.2,798/-.
The respondent averred in the application that she has no source
of income, whereas the appellant is employed as Editor in
Rajashan Patrika and drawing salary a sum of Rs. 70,000/- per
month. That apart, the appellant has the rental income of
Rs.20,000-25,000.
3. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply
thereto. The factum of the appellant being engaged in Rajasthan
Patrika was denied, however, it was submitted that the appellant is
engaged as Office Boy in the office of Dainik Bhaskar and presently
drawing basic salary a sum of Rs.5,850/-. While giving the details
of personal expenses, the appellant averred that he is paying rent
for the residential accommodation a sum of Rs.4,500/- and
incurring domestic expenditure a sum of Rs.2,340/- and other
expenses Rs.1200/- and thus, he is not in position to pay any
amount to the respondent towards the maintenance.
4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material
on record, the Family Court determined the amount payable
towards maintenance pendente lite and other expenses to the
respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the appellant is earning Rs.5,850/- per month and thus, he is not
in position to pay any maintenance to the respondent. Learned
counsel submitted that while passing the order impugned, the
Family Court has altogether ignored the details of personal
expenses furnished by the appellant. However, it is not disputed
before this Court that the respondent has no source of income
whatsoever.
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:44:18 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-4588/2019]
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
and perused the material on record.
7. 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 independent income of his
own sufficient for her or his support 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 spouse. However, n o hard and fast rule can
be laid down for determination of the amount of interim
maintenance.
8. Admittedly, the appellant is employed in the office of Dainik
Bhaskar as Office Boy. As against disclosed income of Rs.5,850/-,
the appellant has given details of his own expenditure which comes
to Rs.8,040/-. It is noticed that the appellant has only averred that
he is drawing basic salary of Rs.5,850/- and has not furnished the
details of the actual monthly salary including the permissible
allowances drawn by him. It is not understandable that if the
appellant is earning only Rs.5,850/- then, how he is managing his
own expenses of Rs.8,040/- per month. It is true that the income
of the appellant from various sources as pleaded was not
established by any cogent evidence on record, but on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the
Family Court regarding the income of the appellant and the order
passed directing payment of meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- per
month to the respondent towards maintenance pendente lite,
cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. The respondent is
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:44:18 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-4588/2019]
required to travel from Ratanpur, Aligarh (UP) to Kota for attending
the date of hearing in the proceedings pending and thus,
Rs.1,000/- directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent
for each date of hearing also cannot be said to be excessive.
9. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent
having any adequate source of income, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the
Family Court determining the amount of maintenance pendente lite
and other expenses payable to the respondent does not warrant
any interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
10. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that the
dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant, shall not
preclude the respondent from filing the appeal for enhancement of
the maintenance, if so advised, or from pursuing the appeal, if any,
already filed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
38/aditya
(Downloaded on 04/01/2020 at 08:44:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
