HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2617/2019

Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c
Bhargav, R/o Ward No. 8, Ratannagar, Churu.

—-Appellant
Versus
Pinki W/o Shri Vijay Kumar, D/o Dulichand, B/c Bhargav, R/o
Laxmangarh, Presently Residing At Baba Balaknath Mandir, Near
Double Railway Fatak, Tanda Udmad, District Hoshiyarpura
Punjab.

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhla

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

24/09/2019

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of

the order dated 9.8.19 passed by the Family Court, Churu in

Family Case No.141/18, whereby an application preferred by the

respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for

short “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the appellant has

been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite a sum of

Rs.7,500/- per month and litigation expenses Rs.500/- for each

date of hearing to the respondent.

2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 10 days.

It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation

Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

on account of an inadvertent error, assailing the order impugned,

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:34:54 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-2617/2019]

he had filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before this court,

which was later dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.9.19

with liberty to file miscellaneous appeal and thus, since the

appellant under bonafide belief was pursuing a wrong remedy, the

delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.

4. For the reasons stated as aforesaid, the application is

allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that

the respondent is earning adequate income by work of tailoring

and therefore, she was not entitled for any maintenance

whatsoever. The appellant has responsibility to maintain his old

aged mother and four children and therefore, he is not in position

to pay the maintenance as determined by the Family Court to the

respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent has

left the company of the appellant voluntarily and therefore, she is

not entitled for maintenance for this reason also.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

7. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of

1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to

the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his

own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the

proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim

maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the

spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent

income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of

social status of other spouse.

8. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of

the amount of interim maintenance. It has come on record that

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:34:54 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-2617/2019]

appellant is an Astrologer earning a sum of Rs.2 lacs per month.

He has four banglows and three cars. According to the

respondent, the appellant is having source of income from

agriculture as well.

9. It is true that there was no concrete evidence produced on

record establishing the income of the appellant as alleged. But,

undoubtedly, there was sufficient material on record showing that

the appellant has reasonable source of income. There was no

evidence produced on record to show that the respondent has

adequate source of income to maintain herself. Even if the

appellant has responsibility to maintain his mother and four

children, he cannot shirk from his responsibility to maintain his

wife, who has no source of income of her own.

10. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the

amount of maintenance a sum of Rs. 7,500/- determined by the

Family Court cannot be said to be in higher side so as to warrant

interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J

95-Aditya/-

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:34:54 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)