SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mithun Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ashok … vs Mamta Sharma W/O Sh. Mithun Kumar … on 2 January, 2020

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)

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