Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1276 (MP)

Nagendra Sharma v. Asha Sharma

2014-10-07

SHEEL NAGU

body2014
JUDGMENT: This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assails the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambah, Dist. Morena in case No. 34/2009 HMA, by which an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses incurred by the respondent – wife has been allowed granting maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 4,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 4,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the trial court failed to take into account the income of the respondent wife which was Rs. 5,000/- per month and also that the application of the respondent wife filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance pendente lite suffers dismissal. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission, this Court is of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons :- The fact of respondent wife earning Rs. 5,000/- per month has merely been stated in the reply to the application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act without submitting any proof in that regard and, therefore, the Court below was well within its jurisdictional purview to ignore the said aspect. As regards the respondent wife having unsuccessfully claimed maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., it is pertinent to observe that no such fact was brought to the notice of the trial court in the reply Annexure P-6 submitted by the petitioner-husband in response to application under section 24 of HMA. Thus there arose no application for the trial court to dwell upon this aspect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also objected to the quantum of maintenance pendente lite being on the higher side. 5. Considering the fact that the maintenance pendent lite is granted not only for the respondent wife but also for the minor daughter living with the respondent wife, the quantum of Rs. 4,000/- per month does not appear to be excessive. 6. In view of above, no case for interference is made out in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India as the Court below does not seem to have transgressed any of its jurisdictional limit. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed. No order as to cost.