HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 32
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. – 82 of 2020
Appellant :- Sushant Mittal
Respondent :- Kriti Agarwal
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Singh,Prabhakar Dwivedi
Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon’ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2019, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, by which application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955) was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.5,000/- for legal expenses.
Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
The appellant-husband had filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.219 of 2019. During the pendency of divorce petition, the respondent-wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, claiming Rs.1,00,000/- per month for maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing application, Rs.22,000/- for counsel-fees and Rs.50,000/- for legal expenses. It is alleged in the application filed by the wife that the income of her husband is Rs.3,50,000/- per month.
The appellant-husband had filed objection to the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, stating therein that the income of the respondent-wife is Rs.10-12 lacs per annum and she deliberately did not produce her PAN card and details of Bank-accounts. It is further stated that Rs.74,000/- per month is credited in her Bank-account towards her salary and she is fully able to maintain herself as well as to meet-out her legal expenses.
The respondent-wife had filed income tax return of the appellant-husband for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 disclosing annual income as Rs.25,20,300/-, Rs.27,50,112/- and Rs.29,56,760/-, respectively, to prove the income of husband. The court-below had recorded the finding that husband has not filed any documentary evidence to prove salary of Rs.74,000/- of his wife.
Admittedly, the respondent is a legal wedded wife of the appellant and the appellant being husband of the respondent is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife in any circumstances. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, after considering the submissions advanced by the parties and scrutinizing the materials on record had partly allowed the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, awarding Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and Rs.5,000/- for legal expenses.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, we are of the opinion that Rs.7,000/- per month towards interim maintenance could not be treated to be on higher side. Thus, we find that the court below has given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order and the same are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the court below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the court below is factually incorrect, manifestly illegal or perverse. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the family court below.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020