HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 525/2019

Nitesh Soni @ Monu S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Soni, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Gopeshwar Basti, Ganga Shahar, Bikaner.

—-Appellant
Versus
Priyanka @ Mohini @ Piku W/o Shri Netesh Soni, Aged About 20
Years, D/o Shri Kishan Gopal, R/o Ward No. 30, Mohanpura,
Nokha, District Bikaner.

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

12/03/2019

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.1.19 passed

by the Family Court No.2, Bikaner, in Case No.31/18 (50/18),

whereby an application preferred by the respondent u/s 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955( in short “the Act of 1955”) has been

partly allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of

Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pendente

lite and further to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum as

litigation expenses and Rs.100/- towards to and fro expenses for

each date of hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order

impugned directing payment of maintenance pendente lite to the

respondent has been passed by the Judge, Family Court, without
(2 of 3) [CMA-525/2019]

application of mind. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant

is presently engaged in training of goldsmith work and his income

is uncertain and thus, the Family Court has seriously erred in

directing payment of maintenance to the respondent a sum of

Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that the

respondent is earning sufficient income by way of tuition and

therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the

appellant.

3. 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 sufficient means to maintain

himself/herself 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.

4. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of

the amount of interim maintenance. Though, the appellant has

attempted to project that he has no source of income but it has

come on record that he is engaged in job of goldsmith and has

sufficient source of income. Even if the appellant is not earning a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as averred by the respondent,

looking at the nature of job wherein he is engaged, it can be

reasonably presumed that he must be earning a reasonable sum.

There was absolutely no evidence on record showing that the

respondent has any independent source of income. Thus, taking
(3 of 3) [CMA-525/2019]

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the

order impugned passed by the Family Court awarding a meagre

sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.5,000/-

lump sum towards litigation expenses cannot be said to be

excessive.

5. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that

the order impugned passed by the Family Court does not suffer

from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this

court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
81-Aditya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)