HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 32
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 63 of 2020
Appellant :- Ram Roop
Respondent :- Smt. Kavita
Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Raj
Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon’ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
In Re: Civil Misc.Delay Condonation Application No. of 2020
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 1288 days in filing the present appeal.
The delay condonation application is supported by the affidavit of the appellant.
We have perused the delay condonation application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof.
Cause shown for delay in filing the appeal appears to be sufficient.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
In Re: First Appeal
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2020, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.1, Agra in Case No.1071 of 2013 (Ram Roop vs. Smt.Kavita), rejecting the application (46-ga) filed by appellant-husband for recalling the order dated 11.5.2016, by which application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955), filed by respondent-wife was allowed.
Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The appellant-husband had filed petition under Section 12 of the Act, 1955, which was registered as Case No.1071 of 2013. During the pendency of aforesaid petition, the respondent-wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, claiming Rs.15,000/- per month for maintenance pendente lite and Rs.15,000/- lump sum for legal expenses.
The learned court-below after considering the objection of appellant-husband and after hearing the parties has partly allowed the petition under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 awarding Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- lump sum towards litigation expenses vide order dated 11.05.2016. The appellant-husband had filed recall application for recalling of order dated 11.5.2016 on the ground that he has come to know that his wife is working on the post of Instructor/Teacher since 2013 and getting salary of Rs.9,800/- per month. The recall application was rejected by the learned court-below vide order dated 4.1.2020, which is impugned in the present appeal. The learned court-below had recorded the finding that the respondent-wife is working as part-time Instructor on contract basis and if the strength of students become less than 100, her contract would be cancelled.
Admittedly, the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the appellant and the appellant being husband of the respondent is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife in any circumstances.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, we are of the opinion that Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance could not be treated to be on higher side. Thus, we find that the court below has given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order and the same are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the court below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the court below is factually incorrect, manifestly illegal or perverse. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the family court below.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020