HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 164/2020
Moolchand S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Village Babalu, Tehsil and District Bikaner (Rajasthan)
—-Appellant
Versus
Bhanwari D/o Shri Manaram, W/o Moolchand, B/c Jat, R/o
Ramsar, Tehsil and District Bikaner (Rajasthan)
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saleem Khan Kayamkhani for Mr.
Ramesh Devasi
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
21/01/2020
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of
the order dated 29.11.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner
in Civil Misc. Petition No.6/19 (CIS No.239/19), 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.25,000/- for the period from
25.2.19 to 31.10.19 and further to pay Rs.6,000/- per month
w.e.f. 1.11.19.
2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking
divorce under the provisions of Section 13 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 23/01/2020 at 08:40:29 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-164/2020]
Rs.10,000/- per month and legal expenses Rs.10,000/- in lump
sum. The respondent averred in the application that she has no
source of income, whereas the appellant is earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture and livestock.
3. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply
thereto, taking the stand that the respondent has deserted him
without any reason and therefore, she is not entitled for any
maintenance. The appellant denied that he is earning Rs.40,000/-
per month. It was averred that as a matter of fact, while working
as a labour, he is earning Rs.3,000-4,000 per month and therefore,
not in position to give any maintenance to the respondent.
4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material
on record, the Family Court determined the amount payable
towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent as aforesaid.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the appellant is earning only Rs.3,000-4,000 per month and
therefore, he is not in position to pay any maintenance to the
respondent. Learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence
produced by the appellant to establish that the respondent has
source of income from agriculture and livestock and thus, the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court on the basis of
speculation, is not justified. Learned counsel submitted that while
working as a labour, the appellant gets the work only for four
months in a year during the cultivation season but the Family
Court has failed to take into consideration this aspect of the
matter.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
and perused the material on record.
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:40:29 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-164/2020]
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. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Family
Court has not accepted the stand of the respondent that the
appellant is earning Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture and
livestock rather, the assessment of the income of the respondent is
made taking into consideration the minimum wages notified. Thus,
while assessing the monthly income of the appellant as
Rs.15,000/- per month, a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per month
has been awarded to the respondent towards the maintenance
pendente lite. Further, instead of awarding maintenance for the
period w.e.f. 25.2.19 to 31.10.19 @ Rs.6,000/- per month, only
Rs.25,000/- lump sum has been awarded and no amount is
awarded towards the litigation expenses.
9. 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
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:40:29 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-164/2020]
amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent towards
maintenance pendente lite, cannot be said to be excessive.
10. No case for interference by us in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction is made out.
11. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
52-Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 23/01/2020 at 08:40:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)