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which was later dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.9.19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)
