SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shreyansh Kabra vs Surabhi on 19 August, 2019

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2163/2019

Shreyansh Kabra S/o Shri Krishan Kabra, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Flat No. 1406, Cb 3, Supertech, Cape Town, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh.

Surabhi W/o Shri Shreyahsh Kabra, Resident Of 22- 23
Ambeshwari Colony, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)


For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar




1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated

22.5.19 passed by the Family Court, Chittorgarh in Civil Original

Case No.35/18, whereby an application preferred by the

respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for

short “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the appellant is

directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each per month towards the

maintenance to the respondent for herself and her minor child-


2. The appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 41 days is

accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

As per the explanation furnished by the appellant, the delay in

filing the appeal has occurred inasmuch as, he was under

impression that the limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days.

According to the appellant he come to know about the period of

(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 11:02:56 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-2163/2019]

limitation for filing the appeal being 30 days, when he contacted

his counsel in this regard. The explanation furnished for delay in

filing the appeal is not plausible and acceptable, however, in the

interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

the order impugned has been passed by the Family Court in

cursory manner without application of mind. Learned counsel

submitted that the respondent has deserted the appellant and

therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance as claimed. It is

submitted that the respondent is educated woman having

qualification of MBA and is earning handsome salary and therefore,

the question of awarding any maintenance to her under the

provisions of the Act of 1955, does not arise. Learned counsel

submitted that the appellant is working as Project Manager in

Nokia Company and having monthly income only Rs.67,000/- per

month whereas, the Family Court awarded the maintenance

pendente lite taking the monthly income of the appellant as

Rs.2,50,000/- per month.

4. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of

1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to

the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain

himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While

considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the

relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain

himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of

the income to maintain at the level of social status of other


(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 11:02:56 PM)

(3 of 3) [CMA-2163/2019]

5. Though, the appellant has attempted to project that the

respondent is having sufficient income to maintain herself, but

admittedly, no material whatsoever was placed on record to

establish that the respondent is having adequate means to

maintain for herself and her minor child. It is not in dispute that

the appellant is employed as Project Manager in Nokia Company at

Noida. The monthly income of the appellant as disclosed by the

respondent is Rs.2,50,000/- per month. If the appellant’s monthly

income was only Rs.67,000/- per month then nothing prevented

him to produce the documentary evidence in this regard before the

Family Court. In any case, even if the appellant has monthly

income of Rs.67,000/- as claimed, a meagre sum of Rs.20,000/-

awarded by the Family Court for the respondent herself and her

minor child cannot be said to be excessive.

6. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case where the respondent has responsibility

of upbringing a child, we are of the opinion that the order

impugned passed by the Family Court determining interim

maintenance payable to the respondent for herself and her minor

child, does not warrant interference by us in exercise of appellate


7. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.


(Downloaded on 28/08/2019 at 11:02:56 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 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