Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 238 (UTT)

VINAY KUMAR GUPTA v. SAVITA GUPTA

2008-05-22

DHARAM VEER, PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2008
JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2007, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 199 of 2006, whereby the application moved by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been disposed of directing the appellant (husband) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of litigation; Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance for wife (respondent no. 1) and Rs. 500/- per month for each of the children (respondents No. 2 and 3). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Savita Gupta (present respondent No. 1) instituted suit for divorce against her husband (present appellant) on the ground of cruelty. They got married in the year 1991. Respondent No. 2 Km. Rovika Gupta and respondent No. 3 Master Pulkeet Gupta born out of the wedlock. It appears that during the pendency of said suit, the wife (present respondent No. 1) moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance. 4. Admittedly, the appellant is a Conductor with the U.P. Roadways. It is also not disputed that respondents No. 2 and 3 are minor children and unable to maintain themselves. As to the respondent No. 1, though, she has alleged that she has no earning capacity, but her husband (appellant) has alleged that she is doing business with her mother and earning for herself and children. The trial court after hearing the parties, allowed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, granting Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses; Rs. 1,000/- per month towards maintenance for wife and Rs. 500/- per month for each of the children (in all Rs. 2,000/- towards maintenance). 5. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant argued that the appellant is a Conductor, on contract basis, with U.P. Roadways and he only gets honorarium at the rate of paise 35 per kilometer. He is hardly able to earn the amount directed to be paid by the trial court. In reply to this Mr. 5. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant argued that the appellant is a Conductor, on contract basis, with U.P. Roadways and he only gets honorarium at the rate of paise 35 per kilometer. He is hardly able to earn the amount directed to be paid by the trial court. In reply to this Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that apart from earning as a Conductor, the appellant is getting pension, as he retired from the service he has rendered in the U.P. Handloom. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidence on record, and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, we are of the view that amount of Rs. 500/- per month per child and Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife is very reasonable, in the circumstances of the case, as it is difficult for the parties to maintain at an amount less than what has been granted by the trial court. Considering the status of the parties and their earning capacity, we concur with the view taken by the trial court. 7. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 03.07.2007, passed by this Court, stands vacated.