HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2419/2018

Virendra Buchha S/o Shri Babulal Buchha, Aged 30 Years, B/c
Buchha, R/o Ward No. 32, Buchha Ka Mohalla, Jorawarpura,
Nokha, District Bikaner.(Rajasthan)

—-Appellant
Versus
Neelam @ Gayatri W/o Shri Virendra Buchha @ Milap, D/o Shri
Pukharaj Banthia, B/c Jain, R/o Phalodi, Tehsil – Phalodi, District
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

13/03/2019

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

It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act.

2. The only reason assigned for condoning the delay in filing the

appeal is that the appellant was not informed by his counsel about

the outcome of the application in time. The reason assigned for

condonation of delay is not plausible and therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected. However, in the interest of justice, we

have examined the matter on merit as well.

3. This appeal is directed against order dated 6.7.18 passed by

the Family Court No.2, Bikaner, in Case No.13/18, whereby an

application preferred by the respondent u/s 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955( in short “the Act of 1955”) has been partly
(2 of 3) [CMA-2419/2018]

allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance pendente

lite and further to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum as

litigation expenses and Rs.500/- towards to and fro expenses for

each date of hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family

Court has seriously erred in ignoring that the respondent is a

highly educated lady, who is having her own source of income. It

is submitted that the appellant is engaged in accounts work and

hardly earn a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month and thus, he is not in

position to pay the maintenance as determined by the Family

Court. It is submitted that the appellant has liability to maintain

his parents and other family members, who are dependent upon

him and thus, the amount of maintenance a sum of Rs.5,000/- per

month as determined by the Family Court is apparently excessive.

5. 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 sufficient means to maintain

himself/herself 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.

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

the amount of interim maintenance. It is noticed that as per the

averments made in the application preferred by the respondent,
(3 of 3) [CMA-2419/2018]

the appellant is operating a shop in Agriculture Produce Market

and earning a sum of Rs.1.5 lac per month. There is nothing on

record suggesting that the respondent is having her own source of

income sufficient to maintain herself. It is true that there was no

cogent evidence on record showing that the appellant is earning a

sum of Rs.1.5 lac per month, however, no cogent evidence in this

regard was brought on record. But then, looking at nature of the

business wherein the appellant is engaged, it can be presumed

that he must be earning a reasonable sum. In any case, the

respondent has categorically admitted that he is earning

Rs.13,000/- per month. Thus, taking into consideration the facts

and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the

Family Court awarding a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- as

maintenance pendente lite and Rs.5,000/- lump sum towards

litigation expenses cannot be said to be unjustified.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that

the order impugned passed by the Family Court does not suffer

from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this

court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
8-Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)