Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 210 (RAJ)

Manoj Jain v. Kalpana Jain

2016-02-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.9.15 passed by the Family Court, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by the respondent u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955( in short “the Act of 1955”) has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month as the maintenance pendent lite to the respondent for herself and the son Naman Jain with effect from the date of filing of the application and further to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned court below has seriously erred in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents without there being any proof about the petitioner's annual income being Rs.25 lacs, as claimed by the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that merely because the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1 lac as annual premium for life insurance, it cannot be presumed that he is in position to pay the maintenance to the respondent as claimed by her. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent has not been able to establish the fact that she has no independent income sufficient to maintain herself. 3. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. 4. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is engaged in work of construction at Kolkata. The fact that the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1 lac as insurance premium, indicates that the petitioner is earning sufficient income. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is engaged in work of construction at Kolkata. The fact that the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.1 lac as insurance premium, indicates that the petitioner is earning sufficient income. In the considered opinion of this court, on overall consideration of the matter, the interim maintenance a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month determined by the court below for the maintenance of the respondent and her son cannot be said to be in higher side. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.