Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1908 (RAJ)

Tarun Kumar Vyas v. Smt. Nirmala

2008-08-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx.3 dated 02.08.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 the District Judge, Bhilwara under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) has been challenged by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, Carefully gone through the order impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, who filed an application against the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, district Bhilwara, seeking monthly allowance of maintenance, which came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- per month as the monthly allowance of maintenance to the respondent-wife. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized with the respondent No.1 before the respondent No.2 the District Judge, Bhilwara. During pendency of that proceeding, the respondent No.1 filed on application under Sec. 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance and expenses for the proceedings, which came to be allowed Vide impugned order Annex.3 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- per month as the interim maintenance to the respondent-wife. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount awarded under Sec. 24 of the Act is subject to the adjustment with the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Harish Kumar v. Smt. Mahjti, 2004(4) WLC (Raj.) 109 ; and Devi Singh v. Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner & Ors., SBCWP No.3771/2007 decided on 24.04.2008 ; and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rekha (Smt.) v. Dr. Mohan Lal, 2006(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1679 . 5. Mohan Lal, 2006(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1679 . 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that a sum of Rs.1000/- per month granted as the monthly allowance of maintenance by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, District Bhilwara, is a meagre amount and looking to the market inflation, if the amount awarded under Sec. 24 of the Act is adjusted with the amount awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. then it would be difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain herself; however, the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions has not been disputed. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the inflation in market rates, in my view, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the monthly allowance of maintenance granted to the respondent-wife under Sec. 24 of the Act from Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month and this amount of Rs.500/- per month is in addition to the amount of monthly maintenance, granted by the judicial Magistrate, Kotdi in favour of the respondent-wife entitling her to receive Rs. 1000 + Rs.500/-, total Rs. 1500/- per month under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Act. 7. With these modification, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed of. *******