SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Kumar Modak vs Sumitra Modak on 18 January, 2020

Civil Revision No. 22 of 2019

Civil Revision No. 22 of 2019

Raj Kumar Modak …. …. Petitioner
Sumitra Modak …. …. Opposite Party



For the Petitioner : M/s. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :

05/ 18.01.2020. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner husband is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 18.04.2019, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bokaro, in Civil Misc. Case No.04 of 2018, whereby, the application filed
by the O.P. wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for
maintenance pendente lite, has been allowed, directing the petitioner
husband to make the payment of Rs.3,000/- per month for maintenance of
his wife and the two children.

3. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the
year 2005, and by the year 2018, they were blessed with two children. The
opposite party wife was served with an ex-parte decree of divorce passed
in O.S. No. 229 of 2016, dissolving the marriage between the parties, and
thereafter, she challenged the ex-parte decree and upon her challenge, the
ex-parte decree was recalled. The application was filed for pendente lite
maintenance, but it appears from the impugned order that no evidence
regarding the definite income of the petitioner could be produced.

4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner husband was
having a transport business, the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month was
allowed to the opposite party wife.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the Court below has
not given the finding that the wife was not able to maintain herself.
Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner husband that his wife was
gainfully employed elsewhere, or having any independent source of
income, nor any affidavit was filed in this regard.

Civil Revision No. 22 of 2019

6. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that since it is
not the positive case of the petitioner that the wife was having
independent source of income, the omission by the Court below in saying
in the order that she was not having any source of income, is not fatal to
the impugned order.

7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18.04.2019
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in Civil
Misc. Case No.04 of 2018, worth any interference in the revisional

8. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is
accordingly, dismissed.

(H.C. Mishra, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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