Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 490 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal Meghawal v. Judge, Family Court Kota

2013-02-28

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Family Court Kota on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter the 1955 Act') filed at the instance of respondent wife Santosh Kumari, in the course of proceedings for divorce petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act filed by the petitioner husband. The petitioner husband has been directed to pay maintenance to respondent wife a sum of 7 2,000/- as expenses of the divorce proceeding, and Rs. 5,000/- per month from 28.8.2009. A meagre amount of Rs. 50/- per date of the case has also been directed to be paid. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned Order dated 27.5.2010. 3. The case of the petitioner is, as was before the Family Court that the respondent wife had married one Vijay Singh Chauhan, who was maintaining her and consequently she is not entitled to any interim maintenance during pendency of the divorce petition. 4. In my considered opinion, the case set up by the petitioner husband is absolutely misdirected. It is not in dispute that the respondent Santosh Kumari is the wedded wife of the petitioner Mangi Lal. It is also not in dispute that the divorce petition tinder Section 13 of the 1955 Act at the instance of petitioner husband Mangi Lal is pending against the respondent wife in the Family Court Kota. Section 24 of the 1955 Act provides that where in any proceeding under the Act of 1955, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and for the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Family Court may on the application of the wife or husband, as the case may be, order the non-applicant to pay to the applicant before it the expenses of the proceeding and monthly expenses during the proceeding such sum as deemed fit in its discretion on the facts and circumstances obtaining. 5. A bare perusal of Section 24 of the 1955 Act, therefore indicates that income of the wife as also the income of the husband has to be considered while deciding the application under Section 24 of the 1955 Act at the instance of the wife. 5. A bare perusal of Section 24 of the 1955 Act, therefore indicates that income of the wife as also the income of the husband has to be considered while deciding the application under Section 24 of the 1955 Act at the instance of the wife. The allegation of wife having entered into another marriage, which in the facts of the case are emphatically denied, would be of no consequence to the liability of an employed/earning husband to support his wife who has no proved source of income. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner husband is working as junior Engineer in Vidhhyut Vitran Nigam Limited jodhpur and is receiving a basic salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month, aside of permissible DA of over 70% and other allowances. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, that the impugned order dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Family Court Kota directing the petitioner husband to pay only a sum of 7 5,000/- per month for maintenance of the respondent wife during pendency of the divorce petition, cannot be termed to be either perverse or otherwise vitiated in law. 7. I find no force in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******