Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2873 (ALL)

Keshav Giri v. Principal Judge (Family Court )

2015-09-14

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 30 July 2012 passed by the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month, Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 50/- as expenses for appearing in the litigation on each date to the fourth respondent, has approached this Court assailing its validity. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12 August 2015 passed by the Revisional Court dismissing the revision and affirming the order of the trial Court dated 30 July 2012. 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the fourth respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner initiated proceedings under section 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaring the marriage with the fourth respondent as null and void, on the ground of alleged ailment of the fourth respondent, as a consequence whereof, marriage was allegedly not consummated. 3. The trial Court on an application filed by the fourth respondent for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses, by impugned order dated 30 July 2012 awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month to the fourth respondent since the date of the application, Rs. 2000/- as lumpsum litigation expenses and Rs. 50/- per day as expenses for appearing in the proceedings. The learned Magistrate while granting the maintenance has placed reliance on a certificate filed by the petitioner himself, wherein the tehsildar has certified the income of the petitioner as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The trial Court held that the fourth respondent is not having any independent source of income to maintain herself and as such, is entitled for the interim maintenance. 4. Before the Revisional Court, the petitioner moved an application for summoning the statement of the savings bank account of the fourth respondent, which was allowed by the Revisional Court. Therein, certain credit entries were made during the period 2012 onwards and on the basis of which, it was contended that the fourth respondent was gainfully employed. The contention made in that regard was repelled by the Revisional Court, after holding that credit entries made in the said account does not demonstrate that the wife is gainfully employed. It has further been noted that the last balance as on 3 August 2015 in the said account, was Rs. 2,232/-. The contention made in that regard was repelled by the Revisional Court, after holding that credit entries made in the said account does not demonstrate that the wife is gainfully employed. It has further been noted that the last balance as on 3 August 2015 in the said account, was Rs. 2,232/-. Accordingly, the Revisional Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court in relation to the grant of maintenance by it. 5. The other contention raised before the Revisional Court was that the fourth respondent had obtained a degree of law during the period 2012-2015 and thus, is in a position to maintain herself. 6. The Revisional Court held that merely obtaining a degree in law, does not mean that the fourth respondent had started earning from the profession. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the fourth respondent, having obtained the degree in law, had got herself enrolled as a lawyer and is now gainfully employed. However, on the query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly admits that the petitioner had not brought any material on record to indicate that she had got herself registered with the Bar Council and is a practicing lawyer. However, reliance has been placed on certain photographs filed at page Nos. 178 and 179 of the petition. Photographs in question also does not prove that the fourth respondents is a practicing lawyer. In these photographs, she is shown wearing a black coat without any band, and especially in the absence of any evidence that she had got herself enrolled as an Advocate, with the Bar Council, it is difficult to believe the contention of the petitioner. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. Moreover, the order impugned is an order of interim maintenance and it is still open to the petitioner to produce material before the trial Court to prove that the fourth respondent is gain fully employed and in which event, it is needless to observe, that the trial Court will duly take into consideration the entire material while passing final orders in the matter. 9. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.