1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA

.

CMPMO No.49 of 2020
Date of Decision: 07.01.2020

Vikas Bhuria …Petitioner

Versus
Kanchan Kumari ..Respondent

Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated

20.03.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District

Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, in CMA No.34-P/VI/2019,

titled as Kanchan Kumari Versus Vikas Bhuria, whereby,

application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the

respondent herein for grant of maintenance pendente lite and

litigation expenses has been allowed by learned Court below in

the following terms:-

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

08/01/2020 20:25:58 :::HCHP
2

“7 In the instant case, the marriage between the
applicant/respondent and petitioner/respondent
and the fact that they are the legally wedded
husband and wife, is not disputed. There is no

.

dispute between the parties that the applicant is

having any property in her name, which is
sufficient to maintain herself. Both the parties
have made rival allegations against each other

regarding the income, however, none has placed on
record any documentary proof to prove their
respective income, but, at this stage, one thing is
clear that the respondent is an able bodied person
and as such, his capacity to earn being labourer is

a sum of Rs.7,000/- and being husband of the
applicant, is legally bond to maintain her wife i.e.
the applicant.

8. As a result of my above discussion, I am of
the considered view that it would be just and

reasonable to grant maintenance pendentelite to the
applicant/respondent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per

month as maintenance allowance from the date of
filing of this application up till the disposal of the
divorce petition. The applicant is also granted
litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed
off. It be tagged with the main petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while

granting maintenance pendente lite in favour of the wife, learned

Court below erred in not appreciating that the petitioner is not in a

position to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance

allowance to his wife as also litigation expenses which have been

assessed at Rs.7000/- per month.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in

my considered view this petition deserves dismissal. It is not in

08/01/2020 20:25:58 :::HCHP
3

dispute that the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section

13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for a decree of divorce

.

against the respondent herein. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act entitles the wife to move an appropriate application seeking

maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Learned Court

below while allowing such application filed before it by the present

respondent, has only ordered a meager amount of Rs.1500/- per

month as maintenance allowance as from the date of filing of the

application, till decision of the divorce petition. In addition, it has

also granted litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/- per

month. The amount which has been so fixed by the learned Court

below as maintenance pendente lite, by no stretch of imagination,

can be said to be on the higher side or an excessive amount. In

fact, in case, the Court issues a notice in this petition to the

respondent herein, she will be unnecessarily dragged to the High

Court for defending the order vide which only an amount of

Rs.1500/- per month has been granted to her as maintenance

pendente lite.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in another proceedings, which have been initiated by

the respondent herein against the petitioner under the provisions

of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the

Court has ordered payment of an amount of Rs.7000/- per month

08/01/2020 20:25:58 :::HCHP
4

to the respondent herein as well as the minor child and Rs.3000/-

per month as rent for alternative accommodation. He further

.

informs the Court that this order, otherwise assailed by the

petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

5. Be that as it may, while deciding this petition, this

Court is not to be influenced by the decision, which has been made

by the appropriate Court in the proceedings, which stand initiated

against present petitioner by respondent herein under the

provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005. It is reiterated that as the petitioner has filed a petition

under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has to be

defended by the respondent herein before the appropriate Court of

law, therefore, the respondent is bound to pay to the petitioner

litigation expenses as well as maintenance allowance as is

envisaged under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further

reiterated that amount of Rs.1500/- per month which has been

granted by the learned Court below in favour of the respondent

herein, cannot be said to be excessive and the same, thus, calls for

no interference. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that

while passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard or

due opportunity to put forth his case was not granted by the

learned Court below. Therefore also, in exercise of its power of

superintendence, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

08/01/2020 20:25:58 :::HCHP
5

of India, will not interfere with the order so passed by the learned

Court below.

.

6. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this

Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is

dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

dismissed.

(Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge.

January 07, 2020
(Rishi)

08/01/2020 20:25:58 :::HCHP