Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 682 (MP)

Sanjay Singh Thakur v. Kiran Thakur

2015-07-02

RAJENDRA MENON, SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.9540/2015, application for condonation of delay. 2. There is a delay 26 days in filing this appeal. 3. Keeping in view the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.5.2014 for grant of additional maintenance in a proceedings under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. As short question is involved, the matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 6. The appellant herein had initiated a proceedings for dissolution of the marriage under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat. In the said proceedings, respondent moved an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and sought interim maintenance. The application for maintenance under section 24 (Annexure A-2) was filed by the non-applicant on 13.8.2009 and on notice being issued on the same, the appellant herein filed his reply to the said application on 11.9.2009. 7. However, the respondent wife wanted transfer of the case pending before the Family Court, Balaghat to Mandla and, therefore, she filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as MCC No.1358/2009 was pending before this Court and a Bench of this Court on 30.10.2009 stayed the proceedings under section 13B. The entire proceedings before the Family Court, Balaghat was stayed which is evident from the order sheet dated 13.11.2009 available on record. 8. Finally, MCC No.1358/2009 was decided by this Court on 10.5.2013. The application for transfer of the proceedings was rejected and from 25.5.2013, proceedings again commenced before the family Court and finally the impugned order of maintenance was passed by the Family Court on 2.5.2014. 9. Grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the learned Family Court has directed for grant of additional maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent and while doing so, it is directed that the amount of Rs.1,500/- shall be granted from the date the application was filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. 9. Grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the learned Family Court has directed for grant of additional maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent and while doing so, it is directed that the amount of Rs.1,500/- shall be granted from the date the application was filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. Shri Paritosh Trivedi points out that because of the stay granted by this Court at the instance of the non-applicant in MCC No.1358/2009 from 13.11.2009 to 25.5.2013, the proceedings stood stayed and now the appellant should not be burdened with the liability of paying the enhanced amount from the date of application particularly when decision of the application was stayed at the instance of the respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Court below is proper. It does not require any reconsideration. Enhanced maintenance has been granted in accordance with the requirement of law. 12. We have heard the rival contentions made by both the parties. Maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month has been granted to the respondent by virtue of the order dated 15.7.2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla in a proceedings under section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The application under section 24 was filed by the respondent on 13.8.2009 and the appellant has responded immediately on 11.9.2009 by filing a reply Annexure A-3. However, after this was done, the proceedings in the Family Court stood stayed because of an application has been filed by the non-applicant for transfer of the proceedings and since the matter was pending before the High Court from 2009 to 2013, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability of making the payment of the enhanced amount from the date the application i.e. 13.8.2009. The non-applicant herself has delayed the proceedings by seeking transfer of proceedings and got stay of the proceedings under section 24 before the Family Court. 13. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is force in the argument of the appellant for seeking modification of the order. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and modify the directions issued by the Family Court, Balaghat dated 2.5.2014 (Annexure-A/1) and upholding the additional maintenance. 13. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there is force in the argument of the appellant for seeking modification of the order. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and modify the directions issued by the Family Court, Balaghat dated 2.5.2014 (Annexure-A/1) and upholding the additional maintenance. We only modify the impugned order to say that maintenance of Rs.1,500/- shall be paid to the non-applicant w.e.f. the date of order Annexure A-1 was passed i.e. 02.05.2014 and not from the earlier date. Remaining part of the order and direction issued in the impugned order shall continue. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of.