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