228 FAO-M-201-2017 with CMM-195-2018
NEETU GAUR V/S NAVEEN ANRGISH
Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant-wife.
Mr. Manish K. Rampal, Advocate, for the respondent-husband.
Reply to application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act has not been filed.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of her petition for divorce, the
appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal. During pendency of the
appeal, the appellant-wife has filed an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of
Rs.50,000/- per month and litigation expenses. As per the avements in the
application, the appellant-wife herself is working as an Assistant Professor
in the Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development, Sector 19,
Chandigarh and earning a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month. She is looking
after two growing children, students of 3rd and 5th class respectively. As per
the averments in the application, the respondent-husband was working as an
agent with ICICI Life Insurance but later on, he joined TATA AIG and at
present he is earning more than Rs.2 lakh per month including the rental
income from 5 to 6 shops in Bilaspur, HP and the building which has been
let out to one transport company.
Respondent-husband is present in person and has explained that
his income has been exaggerated in the application whereas he is working
only as a Naturopath and is doing the business of Yoga instructions and has
submitted that he only earns a sum of Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
He has further submitted that the transport business is being conducted by
1 of 3
14-10-2018 08:53:39 :::
FAO-M-201-2017 with CMM-195-2018 -2-
On asking of the Court, the respondent-husband informs that
his sisters are married and the mother is staying with him but she is only
earning sum of Rs.20,000/- from the transport business. He has also urged
that he is paying maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to each of the child as
per the orders passed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
are of the opinion that since the appellant-wife herself is earning, she would
not be entitled to any amount of maintenance pendente lite but taking into
consideration the fact that she is shouldering the additional responsibility of
looking after the minor children and is incurring expenditure on them, a sum
of Rs.6000/- received by her for the children, does not seem to be sufficient
enough for respectable upbringing of the children taking into consideration
the status of both the parties.
Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the respondent-husband, being an able bodied skilled person, having
financial benefits of the transport business income of his mother, who is
staying with him, can be required to pay additional amount in proceedings
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for enabling her for bringing
up both the children in proper manner commensurate with the status of both
It is not out of place to observe here that respondent-husband,
present in the Court, has not shown any reluctance to voluntarily pay the
money for upbringing of the children.
Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is
allowed. It is ordered that the appellant-wife will be entitled to a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month with effect from the date of application i.e. August,
2 of 3
14-10-2018 08:53:40 :::
FAO-M-201-2017 with CMM-195-2018 -3-
2018 besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- payable by the respondent-
husband. A sum of Rs.6000/- already ordered by the Court in proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C, will be adjustable against the amount of
For clearance of the entire arrears of maintenance and litigation
expenses, adjourned to 30.11.2018.
September 26, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
3 of 3
14-10-2018 08:53:40 :::