Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 654 (RAJ)

Banarsi Meghwal v. Dinesh Kumar

2013-04-02

AMITAVA ROY, MEENA V.GOMBER

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard Ms.Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.A.K.Bhargava, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The instant application is by the appellant-wife in the accompanying D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2310/2010 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 30,000/- per month along with cost of the litigation. The appeal aforementioned puts to challenge the judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Family Court No.1, Jaipur decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the opposite party against the appellant. It has been inter alia asserted in the accompanying D.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.438/2011 that though the above appeal had been preferred in time, the opposite party contracted a second marriage on 16.10.2010, which he got registered on 21.10.2010. 3. In the application under consideration, the applicant has averred that the opposite party is an Assistant Engineer with the State Government and is presently posted on deputation as Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu and has a monthly income of Rs. 36,000/- (approx.). According to her, he has other immovable properties, which together, are valued at several crores and fetch him handsome amounts heaping upto several lacs. According to her, she has no means of livelihood and her daily needs being very reasonable, she is entitled to an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month for her survival, which the opposite is obligated in law to provide as maintenance pendente lite. 4. The opposite party, in his reply, while admitting that he has a take home salary of about Rs. 42,000/- per month, has stated that the applicant is a very rich lady having several plots of land in her name and also a petrol pump in Kasba Randhisar Pahadi in Sujangarh. He has stated further that she has a running business and is possessed of huge stridhan properties. Apart from contending that she is in possession of a house provided by him, it has been insisted that being the daughter of a State Minister, she is in no need of maintenance from him. 5. Whereas Ms. He has stated further that she has a running business and is possessed of huge stridhan properties. Apart from contending that she is in possession of a house provided by him, it has been insisted that being the daughter of a State Minister, she is in no need of maintenance from him. 5. Whereas Ms. Saraf has argued that though the applicant is a Doctorate, but not having elected to undertake a job, does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, thus warranting an order for maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act, Mr.Bhargava has urged that the opposite party having married again and is saddled with the burden of maintaining his mother, wife and the child through the second marriage, he is left with no means to pay any amount by way of maintenance to the applicant. He has urged as well that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled in law to any maintenance, as claimed by her. 6. We have considered the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. 7. The pleadings of the opposite party do not disclose the extent of earning of the applicant from the various sources indicated therein. On the other hand, it is admitted by the opposite party that he has a net income of about Rs. 42,000/- from his service. As the appeal is presently pending before this Court having been preferred against the judgment and decree of divorce in a proceeding instituted by the opposite party/husband, the applicant would be entitled to maintenance pendente lite, if the conditions precedent embodied in Section 24 of the Act stand satisfied. The materials on record do not dislodge the plea of the opposite party that as on date, his take home salary is Rs. 42,000/- per month with which he has to maintain his mother, wife and a minor daughter, apart from himself. The applicant is not in employment and when queried by us, the learned counsel has submitted that she is supported by her parents signifying that she is dependent on them. 8. On a conjoint consideration of the pleadings of the parties, we are inclined to hold that the applicant is entitled to maintenance pendente lite in the context of the letter and spirit of Section 24 of the Act. 8. On a conjoint consideration of the pleadings of the parties, we are inclined to hold that the applicant is entitled to maintenance pendente lite in the context of the letter and spirit of Section 24 of the Act. The materials on record, in our estimate, do not disentitle her from the benefit as contemplated in that legal provision. On a balanced evaluation of the pleaded facts and the other documents on record, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the applicant with effect from 1.1.2013. The current payment would be made by the first week of April, 2013 and the arrears would be liquidated by the end of this month i.e.April, 2013. The prayer for cost of litigation is however rejected, in the facts and circumstances of the case.The misc.application stands disposed in these terms.Application Disposed Of. *******