HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 59
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 10254 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Aditi
Respondent :- Amit Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad,Rakesh Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Singh
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed primarily against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi in Matrimonial Case No. 1136 of 2016.
It seems that the respondent, who is husband of the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 1136 of 2016. The petitioner filed an application therein under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite. The application filed under Section 24 of the Act bearing paper no. 17-Ga as well as objection filed against the same bearing paper no. 19-Ga were disposed of by the Principal Judge, Family Court vide order dated 28.03.2019. The petitioner was granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as traveling expense on each date and a lumpsum compensation/maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. The amount aforesaid was directed to be paid within 30 days. It is not in dispute that in compliance of the said order, the petitioner has so far received a sum of Rs. 29,000/- from the opposite party.
The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application dated 01.07.2019 stating that the application filed by her under Section 24 of the Act was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2019, without granting maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month as prayed for by her in the earlier application. Accordingly, the petitioner again made a prayer for being granted maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month. The said application has been rejected by impugned order dated 27.11.2019 holding that the previous application filed for same relief was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2019. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner. In other words, the view taken is that a second application for same relief would not be maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the maintenance amount, as prayed for in the application 17-Ga, was not granted, therefore, the petitioner was justified in filing subsequent application.
This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In case the previous application was decided by an order with which petitioner was not satisfied, it was always open to her to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings but she cannot be permitted to file repeated applications for the same relief.
The instant petition is wholly devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 7.1.2020
Vikram
