SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Bhawana @ Neetu D/O Bhanu … vs Amit Singh Jadaun S/O Shri Siyaram … on 29 January, 2020

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)

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