SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Shakti Rani vs Shri Darshan Lal on 21 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.: 225 of 2017

Date of Decision: 21.03.2018

.
_

Smt. Shakti Rani ….Petitioner.

Vs.
Shri Darshan Lal …..Respondent.

Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate.

For the respondent: r Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate.

Respondent present in person.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order, dated

28.01.2017, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (II),

Una in a petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

vide which, learned Court below has directed that the respondent shall

pay an amount of `15,00/- per month, as maintenance pendente lite in

favour of the present petitioner. The order passed by the learned Court

below stands assailed on the ground that the amount which has been

ordered to be paid as maintenance pendente lite, is meager and on a

lower side. According to the petitioner, the respondent is having a settled

business at industrial area Tahliwal and his monthly income is to the

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

22/03/2018 23:13:18 :::HCHP
2

tune of `2,00,000/- per month. Besides this, according to the petitioner,

the respondent is also having other moveable and immoveable assets

worth lacs of rupees in his name. On these basis, it has been urged on

.

behalf of the petitioner that the learned Court below has erred in not

taking into consideration the financial capacity of the respondent while

directing that a meager amount of `15,00/- be paid in favour of the

wife. In order to substantiate the fact that the respondent was in fact

financially sound, the petitioner has also placed on record an income

return statement submitted by the respondent, dated 30.06.2012,

perusal of which demonstrates that the income of the petitioner was in

excess of rupees three lac per annum.

2. By way of a reply so filed to the petition, the

respondent has denied the averments made in the petition. He has

further mentioned that he is also paying an amount of `3,000/- per

month as maintenance, as also rent for the accommodation, which is

presently in the possession of present petitioner. According to the

respondent, he has four children to look after, three of whom are

undergoing education. He has further submitted that one of his children

is differently abled and he is a sole bread earner to look after the needs of

these children. He has denied that his monthly income is to the tune of

`2,00,000/-per month or he has a settled business at industrial area

Tahliwal, as alleged by the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the records of the case.

22/03/2018 23:13:18 :::HCHP
3

4. It is not in dispute that the present respondent is

paying maintenance charges to the petitioner in obedience to the orders

so passed by the respective Courts in proceedings initiated under Section

.

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact

that respondent also has to look after four other children, one of whom is

differently abled and the fact that he is already paying maintenance

under various provisions of law, in my considered view, interest of justice

will be served in case order passed by the learned Court below is modified

to the extent that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner an amount of

`3000/- per month as maintenance in place of `15,00/- per month.

This modification is being ordered by the Court as the respondent, who is

present in the Court in person has submitted that he shall pay `3,000/-

per month as maintenance pendente lite.

5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by modifying the

order, dated 28.01.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge

(II), Una to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to `3,000/- per

month as maintenance pendente lite in proceedings initiated under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also

miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
March 21, 2018
(bhupender)

22/03/2018 23:13:18 :::HCHP

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