Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 720 (RAJ)

Jitendra Kumar Soni v. Smt. Ranjeeta Soni

2014-03-14

ALOK SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an Application No. 15317 dated 7.5.2012 filed by the respondent-applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955'). 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the applicant before the District Judge, Sikar. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the applicant submitted an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 for pendente lite expenses and maintenance. The application was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay to the applicant maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The divorce petition before the District Judge, Sikar however failed and has entailed an appeal under Section 28 of the Act of 1955 before this Court. 3. It appears that the applicant also moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for her maintenance and also of her minor son Vaibhav. The said application was allowed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar vide order dated 8.5.2012 and it was directed that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. be paid to the applicant and additionally a sum of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. be also paid to her son Vaibhav (aggregating to Rs. 5,000/- p.m.) as interim maintenance. It appears that subsequently vide order dated 5.1.2013 the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on an application directed that the amount of maintenance to the applicant be enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and further an amount of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. be paid for the maintenance of the minor son Vaibhav, The order dated 5.1.2013 was challenged by way of a revision by the applicant before the District Judge, Sikar. The revision is still pending. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the applicant and the appellant-non-applicant on the application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. 5. It is admitted fact that the appellant is working as a Constable in the Government Railway Protection Force and earns a gross salary of over Rs. 25,000/- p.m. There is no credible proof with regard to the applicant earning any amount even though it is alleged that she is adequately qualified. The minor son Vaibhav, born from the wedlock of the appellant and the applicant, is also living with the applicant. 6. 25,000/- p.m. There is no credible proof with regard to the applicant earning any amount even though it is alleged that she is adequately qualified. The minor son Vaibhav, born from the wedlock of the appellant and the applicant, is also living with the applicant. 6. In these circumstances in my considered opinion the ends of justice would be met in the event the application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 filed by the applicant is disposed of with the direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance and further an amount of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. for the upkeep of the minor son Vaibhav who is admittedly residing with the applicant with effect from 7.5.2012. Prior thereto the directions of the Lower Courts under Section 125 Civil Procedure Code would prevail. It is made clear that the said amounts would be inclusive of any amount otherwise payable to the applicant under the orders of Lower Court. with reference to Section 125 Civil Procedure Code or otherwise. The applicant is held entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000/- for pursuing this appeal against the dismissal of the divorce petition. The appellant is directed to make payment of arrears to the applicant within a period of six months from today.The application stands accordingly disposed of.Application disposed of. *******