HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3570/2019
Smt. Bhawana @ Neetu D/o Bhanu Pratap Singh, Aged About 28
Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Basedi, Police Station, Basedi, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan)
—-Appellant
Versus
Amit Singh Jadaun S/o Shri Siyaram Singh Jadaun, Aged About
28 Years, B/c Jadaun (Rajput), R/o Village Vinega, Post Chainpur,
Police Station, Masalpur, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur,
Advocate
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
29/01/2020
Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the part of the
order dated 21.05.2019, whereby relief of the maintenance
pendente lite was not granted to her.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
respondent is posted as a Government Teacher and is earning
more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. It has been noticed by the
Family Court that the wife was having no source of income.
However, for no valid reasons, relief of maintenance pendente lite
has been declined to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal.
(Downloaded on 05/02/2020 at 09:01:35 PM)
(2 of 2) [CMA-3570/2019]
Admittedly, parties got married on 05.03.2016. Out of the
wedlock, a daughter was born to the parties on 04.09.2017.
Admittedly, minor child is residing with the appellant. Respondent
is posted as a Government Teacher and is earning more than Rs.
20,000/- per month. It has been noticed by the Family Court that
the appellant was having no source of income.
In these circumstances, we are unable to understand as to
why appellant was not granted maintenance pendente lite by the
Family Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of
the opinion that the wife is entitled to receive Rs. 8,000/- per
month by way of interim maintenance as she has to maintain
herself as well as the minor child.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed. It is directed that the
respondent shall pay Rs.8,000/- per month by way of interim
maintenance to the appellant from the date of filing of the
application. The part of the order, whereby appellant was allowed
to Rs. 2,000/- for each court date is upheld.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J
Gourav/Jatin /10
(Downloaded on 05/02/2020 at 09:01:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
