Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 57 of 2021
Appellant :- Rajmani
Respondent :- Smt. Pooja
Counsel for Appellant :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari
Hon’ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon’ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Considering the fact that limitation for filing this appeal has expired during COVID 19 Pandemic, therefore, the said limitation automatically stands extended in view of order dated 27.04.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in re: cognizance for extension of limitation.
We treat the appeal as within limitation.
Application for condonation of delay (C.M.Application No. 65391 of 2021) stands disposed of.
We have perused the judgment by which the opposite party has been granted maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings during pendency of the suit, proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that he is ready to live with opposite party-wife, but she is not coming to live with him. He says that amicable settlement between the parties is possible but her maternal uncle “Mama” with whom the opposite party is residing, is creating hurdles. He says that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have also been instituted.
Be that as it may, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that wherein any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Based on an application filed by the respondent herein the court below has awarded Rs. 1500/- as maintenance pendente lite on monthly basis and expenses of the proceedings to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-, which is a one time payment, has also been awarded, which cannot be said to the unreasonable.
We confronted the learned Counsel for the appellant that what is the illegality in the order, but he could not place before us any such valid ground for interference in this appeal. If proceedings under Sections 125 Cr.P.C. are pending then the amount awarded herein can be adjusted to the amount which may be awarded therein, if it is so permissible in law, this cannot be a ground for setting aside the impugned judgment order/ judgment. As regards the amicable settlement we direct the court below to make an earnest endeavor in the light of the letter and spirit of Section 9 of the Family Court’s Act wherein the Family Courts have been created, which cast a duty upon the court to make efforts for amicable settlement between the parties. It being a matrimonial dispute, earnest effort be made in this regard by resorting to mediation etc., before proceedings to decide the proceedings on merit.
We therefore, dismiss this appeal subject to observation/direction made above as regards effort to be made by the court below regarding amicable settlement in the matter.
Order Date :- 24.6.2021/Jyoti/-