SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Neetu Gaur vs Naveen Anrgish on 26 September, 2018

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

his mother.

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

of them.

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

Rs.20,000/-.

For clearance of the entire arrears of maintenance and litigation

expenses, adjourned to 30.11.2018.

(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE

September 26, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
harsha JUDGE

3 of 3
14-10-2018 08:53:40 :::

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