SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sharad Kumar @ Sonu vs Sneha Bharati on 1 October, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2869 of 2014

Sharad Kumar @ Sonu, son of Sri Sheocharan Das, resident of
Swarnrekha Jal Vidhyud Pariyojna, Sikidari, PO PS-Sikidari,
District-Ranchi ….. ….. …. Petitioner

–Versus–

Sneha Bharati, wife of Sri Sharad Kumar @ Sonu and daughter
of Sri Dasrath Prasad, resident of Patwatoli, Ward No.17, PO
PS-Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad (Bihar)
…. ….. Opposite Party/ Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate

08/ 01.10.2018 The petitioner, who has instituted Matrimonial Title
Suit No.72 of 2011 seeking divorce, is aggrieved of order
dated 10.04.2014 by which he has been directed to pay
Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and
Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses to his wife.

2. The suit was instituted on 16.03.2011. At that time,
the petitioner was working as a Sales Application Engineer
with Y.G. Cutting Tools Corporation Pvt. Ltd. He claims that on
25.06.2012 he had tendered his resignation from the said post.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
on the date when the order of interim maintenance was passed
by the trial Judge the petitioner was not in service and he had
no source of income.

4. In the first place it is the petitioner who has tendered
his resignation from service and not that he has been removed
from service. Marriage between the parties is admitted by the
petitioner and, thus, in law, he is under an obligation to
maintain his wife. No doubt, the application under section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be decided considering
the capacity of the parties, I find that except taking a plea that
the impugned order dated 10.04.2014 proceeds on a premise
that the petitioner was in service, no other plea has been raised
2

by the petitioner.

5. In the above facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned
order dated 10.04.2014 and accordingly the writ petition is
dismissed.

6. By an order dated 29.03.2016 the petitioner was
directed to deposit 50% of the awarded amount alongwith
Rs.5,000/-.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that some time may be given to the petitioner for
complying with order dated 10.04.2014.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that by 02.11.2018 the
petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- and thereafter the balance
amount shall be deposited by him in equal instalments within a
period of next five months.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SI/,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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