Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1626 (RAJ)

Deepika v. Mahaveer Ojha

2013-09-17

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara, on the application filed by the petitioner/wife, Smt. Deepika, on 02.05.2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') for maintenance pendente lite and expenses incurred by her for the proceedings, which came to be rejected by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara by the impugned order. 2. The respondent/husband, Mahaveer Ojha, contested the said application while alleging that under a mutual agreement between the parties executed on 22.05.2007, the petitioner, Smt. Deepika has already been paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lacs only) by cheque as permanent alimony and, therefore, no case of further grant of any alimony, monthly or lump sum arises under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. 3. Learned District Judge, agreeing with the said objection of the respondent/husband has rejected the application and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 4. This Court in view of young age of the parties, summoned them for exploring the possibility of mutual settlement of the present matrimonial dispute, but after inter action with them, it did not appear possible and, therefore, the present writ petition was heard on its own merits. 5. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that the petitioner has claimed in the present case that the mutual agreement dated 22.05.2007 allegedly executed between the parties is a forged document and the respondent/husband is now qualified as a Chartered Accountant and gets good salary and, therefore, he should pay monthly maintenance to her during the period of separation even though the petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for divorce filed by the respondent/husband is pending in the competent court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/husband urged that the said mutual agreement is perfectly legal and in pursuance of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 6 lacs (Rupees six lacs only) was paid to the petitioner, Smt. Deepika. He further submitted that the respondent/husband is still unemployed and pursuing his studies of Company Secretary course and he recently only has qualified as Chartered Accountant. 6 lacs (Rupees six lacs only) was paid to the petitioner, Smt. Deepika. He further submitted that the respondent/husband is still unemployed and pursuing his studies of Company Secretary course and he recently only has qualified as Chartered Accountant. The father of the respondent/husband is a retired Head Master of the Government school and looking to various cases instituted by the petitioner and her relatives against the respondent and his family members, there is no chance of reconciliation between them. The trial of the divorce application u/s 13 of the Act of 1955 is near completion before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara and the same may be directed to be decided within stipulated time frame and the learned District Judge may also decide appropriate maintenance also at the time of deciding the divorce application on merits on the basis of available material. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that impugned order does not require any interference by this Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case and reasons given for rejection of the application u/s 24 of the Act of 1955 , rejection of the application is found to be justified. The amount paid under the agreement of Rs. 6 lacs by cheque, has not been sufficiently established to be under a forged agreement and the said agreement appears to be a mutual agreement on consent of the parties from which the petitioner is now seeking to wriggle out, for the reasons best known to her. 8. Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is only for interlocutory relief to the party concerned, and non-grant of such maintenance or legal expenses u/s 24 of the Act of 1955, does not require any interference by this Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The said agreement is apparently signed by the witnesses, who are the close relatives of the parties. 9. Consequently, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The said agreement is apparently signed by the witnesses, who are the close relatives of the parties. 9. Consequently, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. The learned District Judge, Bhilwara is however requested to expedite the trial of the Section 13 application between the parties and decide the same on merits, preferably within a period of three months from today and the learned District Judge will also consider the issue of grant of maintenance to the petitioner, Smt. Deepika based on the relevant material placed before him about the requirement of such maintenance and income of the respondent/husband, Mahaveer Ojha. 10. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned District Judge, Bhilwara forthwith.Petition disposed of. *******