HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 460/2015
Smt. Rinki Devi W/o Shri Santosh Kumar D/o Shri Ramjilal, By
Caste Brahmin, R/o Mohalla Baharlabas Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Alwar Rajasthan.
—-Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Umashankar Vyas, By Caste
Brahmin, R/o Jaipur Presently Residing At Court Premises
Behrod, District Alwar Rajasthan.
Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.M. Sharma with appellant
present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
12/09/2018
Challenge in the instant civil misc. appeal has been
made to the order dated 20.01.2015 whereby the learned Judge,
Family Court, Alwar (Rajasthan) dismissed the application filed by
the appellant under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
contended that the learned Family Court while passing the
impugned order has erred in not considering the facts that the
appellant is having two children; one boy Khush Vyas, aged 9
years and another girl Kashish @ Mamta aged 11 years and both
are living with the present appellant. The boy Khush Vyas is
studying in VIIth standard and the girl Kashish @ Mamta is
studying in VIth standard. The appellant is having no source of
income as she is living separately from her husband (respondent
herein). The respondent (husband) is working on the post of LDC
in the Court and getting Rs.25,000/-p.m. as salary. There is every
likelihood that hearing of the divorce petition may take
(2 of 2) [CMA-460/2015]
considerable time. Learned counsel further contended that in the
case of Virendra Kumar Vs. Smt. Santosh Devi, AIR 1988
Raj. 128, it has been observed that “earlier decision under
section 125 Cr.P.C is no bar in deciding application under section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. Learned counsel also
contended that merely because husband denied factum of
marriage, right of wife to get maintenance pendent lite does not
come to an end till the main proceeding is finally decided. Thus,
the appellant be granted total Rs.20,000/- p.m. as maintenance
(Rs.10,000/- per month for her maintenance, Rs.5,000/- p.m. for
study of both the children, Rs. Rs.5,000/- p.m. for the welfare of
both the children) and Rs.500/- to the appellant as travel
expenses for attending each hearing of the court proceedings.
Learned counsel for the respondent (husband)
vociferously opposed the appeal and submitted that the salary of
the respondent is hardly Rs.25,000/- p.m. and with regard of
monthly income of the respondent (husband), produced the salary
slip.
Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is having two
minor kids who are studying in VIIth and VIth Standards, the
appellant is residing separately, there is nothing on record to
suggest that the appellant is having any source of permanent
income as the respondent indisputably is in permanent job and
working on the post of LDC, we allow the appeal of the appellant
in part. The impugned Judgment is set aside. Maintenance is
granted Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the appellant, which would be
payable from October 2018 onwards.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
Sharma NK
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
