Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1200 (JHR)

Sandeep Kumar @ Bobby v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-09-24

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner (husband) against the order dated 20th May, 2003 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 44 of 2002 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby and whereunder, the Court below allowed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as litigation cost and a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the 2nd respondent (the wife). 2. The case of the petitioner is that the manner in which staff and officers of the Lalpur Police Station, Ranchi and family members of the 2nd respondent solemnized the marriage of 2nd respondent with the petitioner, he filed the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 44 of 2002 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring their marriage as null and void. The second respondent filed a petition under Section 24 of the said Act for grant of alimony on the ground that she has no independent income and the petitioner, a man of means and is a rich person working in one Mohan Computer and Electronics at Lalpur, Ranchi in its Software Wing and his monthly income is Rs. 9050/-. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court below though observed that complex issues are involved as appeared from the record, but allowed litigation cost of Rs. 2,500/- and a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the 2nd respondent without proper hearing of petitioner and without taking into consideration his actual earning. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner while placed reliance on Section 24 of the Act and Patna High Court decision in the case of Rajan Kumar Jain v. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 80, submitted that no maintenance pendente lite should have been directed to be paid in a case where the husband denied the factum of marriage. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the statement made by the petitioner at paragraph 4 to the writ petition, wherein he accepted that the marriage was solemnized with the second respondent and he has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act for declaration that their marriage as null and void. 5. 5. This Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot determine the question whether the marriage solemnized is voidable and should be annulled by a decree of nullity or not. It is for the competent Court to determine where the petitioner has moved for appropriate declaration. 6. So far as maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding are concerned no distinction has been made under Section 24 of the Act relating to right of a wife for maintenance in case preferred under Sections 12 or 13 of the Act. 7. The doctrine of alimony in its strict sense means the allowance due to wife from husband when the wife has no separate means sufficient for her defence and subsistence, can claim for maintenance pendente lite. No distinction can be made between a case filed under Section 12 and another filed under Section 13 of the Act. As per Section 24, if the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding the husband can be directed to pay the wife the expenses 6f the proceeding and monthly, during the proceeding, such sum as, having regard to the wifes income and the income of the husband, as may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Similarly, on application preferred by the husband, the Court can direct the wife to pay maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding in appropriate cases. 8. One of the grounds taken in the present case is that the petitioner (the husband) has no income to pay maintenance pendente lite and the expenses of the proceeding. On the other hand, the wife has independent income. 9. Before deciding the issue, this Court intended to make conciliation between the parties. Both the husband and wife were directed to appear in Court. The wife (2nd respondent) showed her eagerness to live with the husband (petitioner herein). The husband (petitioner) was not agreeable to remain with the wife (2nd respondent). 10. From the appearance of petitioner, it appeared to the Court that he is educated, belongs to a well to do family and is well maintained. The parties were directed to file their respective affidavits relating to their income. 11. The husband (petitioner herein) while accepted that he was working in a company known as Mohan Computer and Electronics, Lalpur, Ranchi, a Software Company and was receiving salary of Rs. The parties were directed to file their respective affidavits relating to their income. 11. The husband (petitioner herein) while accepted that he was working in a company known as Mohan Computer and Electronics, Lalpur, Ranchi, a Software Company and was receiving salary of Rs. 9000 per months, taken plea that he is no more in service and is not taking any monetary assistance from his parents. While it is accepted that the husband (petitioner herein) has ancestral properties, but plea has been taken that in absence of partition, he is not getting individual share from the agricultural properties. 12. This Court repeatedly asked the petitioner as to how he is maintaining himself and engaged lawyer both before the Principal Judge, Family Court and before this Court. The reply of the husband (petitioner) is that he is not residing with the parents since June, 2001 and is residing with one Madan Yadav, a distant relative who is maintaining the petitioner. But such statement cannot be relied upon in absence of any evidence. 13. One of the grounds taken by the husband (petitioner) is that his wife (2nd respondent) is running a school for Music. Dance and Painting known as Ragini Art Centre at Deputy Para, Ranchi having its centre at another place. It has been disputed by the wife (2nd respondent). According to her, the Ragini Art Centre is being run by her sister-in-law in which she helps and is not a salaried employee. 14. It has already been pointed out that the right of a wife for maintenance is an incidence of the status. The husband is bound to pay the wifes cost of any proceeding under the Act and to provide her maintenance and support pending disposal of such proceeding. It is for the Court, conferred with the power to order for maintenance pendente lite and cost of the proceeding taking into consideration the income of the wife. 15. There being nothing on the record to suggest that the wife (2nd respondent herein) has any income. The husband (petitioner herein) is well equated well maintained person, as appeared from his appearance and belongs to a well to do family. If those are the factors taken into consideration by the Court below to allow a nominal litigation cost of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1000/- per month for maintenance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. 16. If those are the factors taken into consideration by the Court below to allow a nominal litigation cost of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1000/- per month for maintenance, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. The stay earlier granted stands vacated.