HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2715/2019

Rohit Kumar Alias Pintu Son Of Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Kumawat Resident Of Balakdas Ki Dhani,
Ajabpura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
—-Appellant
Versus
1. Sadhna Devi W/o Rohit Kumar Alias Pintu, Aged About 26
Years, By Caste Kumawat Resident Of Balakdas Ki Dhani,
Ajabpura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Presently
Residing In Father’s Home Village Shishyu, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
2. Shaket Kumar Son Of Rohit Kumar, Aged About 4 months,
Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sadhna Devi W/o
Rohit Kumar Alias Pintu Resident Of Balakdas Ki Dhani,
Ajabpura, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar. Presently
Residing In Father’s Home Village Shishyu, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
—-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Shri Sanjay Mishra

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

02/07/2019
BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE DHADDHA, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant

husband against the order of the learned Family Court, Sikar

passed on 4.5.2019. By this order, the learned Family Court

decided the Matrimonial Civil Suit No.147/2017 filed u/s 18 and 21

of the Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 (for short “the

Act”) with the directions to the appellant to pay Rs.6,000/- per

(Downloaded on 08/07/2019 at 10:43:43 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-2715/2019]

month maintenance to the respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per

month to the respondent No.2, who is minor son represented

through his natural guardian mother w.e.f. March, 2017 for which

respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the maintenance on behalf

of respondent No.2. It was directed that the outstanding amount

of maintenance w.e.f. March, 2017 to April, 2019 would be paid in

four equal installments within two years. The maintenance

amount with effect from May, 2019 would be paid on every 5 th of

the month to the respondent No.1 or the amount would be

deposited in bank on her furnishing the bank account number to

the appellant. It was further directed to the appellant to pay the

maintenance amount to the respondent No.1 till divorce and if

the respondent No.1 divorced, then to remarry. The maintenance

amount for respondent No.2 would continue till he gets majority.

In case, the respondent wife is getting any maintenance by other

order/s, that shall be adjusted from this amount.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the

marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.5.2011

according to the Hindu rites and customs at village Shishyu,

Dantaramgarh. Right from the very beginning, the behaviour of

mother-in-law was not good. Her in-laws demanded for sufficient

dowry but she always tolerated. From the wedlock of their

marriage, one male child namely Sumit was born on 30.11.2014.

Respondent No.1 gave a birth to the second child in her parent’s

home on 20.11.2016. Respondent wife lodged FIR No.223/2016 at

Police Station Ranauli against the appellant and her mother-in

-law for offence u/s 498A, 406 and 323 SectionIPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

impugned order dated 4.5.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and against the

(Downloaded on 08/07/2019 at 10:43:43 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-2715/2019]

material available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the

respondent wife left the matrimonial home on 14.9.2016 without

information to the appellant. He submitted that the respondent

wife does not want to reside with the appellant. The appellant is

earning only Rs.7,000/- per month from the shop. Learned

counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that the appellant

cannot pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- per month as apart from an

amount of Rs.9,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/- for wife and Rs.

3,000/- for the child), a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month has been

ordered to be paid towards the arrears of maintenance from the

date of filing of the application. So, the maintenance awarded by

the learned Family Court be set aside.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

arguments advanced by the appellant, perused the impugned

order and the material available on record.

5. The appellant did not establish any evidence in the

learned Family Court that the respondent wife had an adequate

source of income to maintain herself and her minor son. Learned

Family Court in its order observed that the appellant had given

statement before police that he had a shop for light and water

fittings at Palsana. These facts were affirmed by him in his cross

examination. Learned Family Court also observed that the

appellant had produced fee receipt of his son of Rs.3300/- for 1 st

term. This shows that the appellant has sufficient source of

income. It is moral and legal duty of husband to maintain his wife

and children. Respondent wife also have to look after her minor

children. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

appellant prayed that the appellant cannot pay a sum of

Rs.19,000/- per month as apart from an amount of Rs.9,000/- per

(Downloaded on 08/07/2019 at 10:43:43 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-2715/2019]

month (Rs.6,000/- for wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the child), a sum

of Rs.10,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid towards the

arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. If

that be so, it would be open to the appellant to make a suitable

application before the Family Court to reduce the monthly amount

of arrears to a reasonable sum for being paid in future. So, the

above mentioned maintenance awarded by the learned Family

Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the

appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Hence, the appeal along with stay application stands

dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/67

(Downloaded on 08/07/2019 at 10:43:43 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)