Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 950 (RAJ)

Meera v. Shyam Sunder

2016-07-06

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
ORDER : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. 1. Aggrieved of the order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh (Alwar) in Civil Misc. Case No.76/2006, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act of 1955'), the petitioner-wife has instituted the present writ application for enhancement of the amount of maintenance along with an interest @ 15% per annum. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Kachhawa, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has vehemently aruged that the respondent-husband instituted petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. Pending the proceedings, the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance for her minor daughter and herself as well as expenses of the proceedings instituted before the Court. 3. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-husband is a Government Employee and is in receipt of gross pay of Rs. 17,740/- per month, after implementation of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, and therefore, the amount of maintenance allowed vide order dated 20th January, 2009, needs to be enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. It is further contended that the Court below committed gross error in not according ?rd of the amount of the salary of the respondent-husband, as maintenance or Rs. 10,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner-wife. 5. Per contra; resisting the claim of the petitioner-wife for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on her application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955; learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband raised preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of the writ application for the petitioner-wife has suppressed material facts and thus has played fraud on Court. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner-wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Mathura (U.P.) on 4th July, 2005 and was allowed interim maintenance @ 2500/- per month as is evident from the order dated 26th November, 2008. Subsequently, the main petition was disposed off with an order for maintenance @ 3500/- on 16th November, 2010, which has been placed on record as Annexure-R/1-1. 6. Subsequently, the main petition was disposed off with an order for maintenance @ 3500/- on 16th November, 2010, which has been placed on record as Annexure-R/1-1. 6. Learned counsel would further contend that on a Criminal Revision Petition No.518/2010, against the order dated 16th November, 2010, preferred by the petitioner-wife, the amount of maintenance was enhanced by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-IX, Mathura (U.P.) by an ex-parte order, to Rs. 5,000/- per month, as would be evident from the order. A copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-R-1/2. 7. The respondent-husband, aggrieved of the ex-parte order dated 20th September, 2011, preferred a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 1980/2012). The High Court at Allahabad, vide order dated 29th March, 2012, stayed the operation of the judgment and orders dated 20th September, 2011 and 16th November, 2010, subject to payment of 50% of the arrears of maintenance within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 29th March, 2012. In addition, the respondent-husband has been directed to continue to pay the current maintenance @ 4,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife and the daughter on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month. 8. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-husband, in compliance of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, has paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- and is also continuing to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month in compliance of the directions dated 29th March, 2012, issued by the High Court at Allahabad. Hence, the writ application preferred by the petitioner-wife for enhancement of amount of enhancement with reference to same cause of action and on the same set of grounds is absolutely misconceived. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 10. Indisputably, the petitioner-wife has been allowed maintenance by the Court below under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month with Rs. 300 in addition for every date, to meet out the expenses to attend the court proceedings. The petitioner-wife is also in receipt of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month in compliance of the order of the High Court at Allahabad dated 29th March, 2012 (Anneuxre-R/3), available on record. 2,000/- per month with Rs. 300 in addition for every date, to meet out the expenses to attend the court proceedings. The petitioner-wife is also in receipt of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month in compliance of the order of the High Court at Allahabad dated 29th March, 2012 (Anneuxre-R/3), available on record. The facts detailed out in the counter-affidavit have not been disputed by way of subsequent pleadings be it an additional affidavit or rejoinder. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent-husband, a Government employee is in receipt of gross salary of Rs. 17,740/- per month and after deductions to the tune of Rs. 6,100/-, his net pay is Rs. 11,640/- per month. The order of maintenance granted pendent-lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, by its nature would last on conclusion of the main proceedings before the Court. Hence, such a grant of interim maintenance in itself cannot be a ground of rejecting a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 12. Be that as it may, from the materials available on record, it is evident that the proceedings with reference to grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is subject matter of Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court at Allahabad. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IV, Mathura (U.P.), were instituted on 4th July, 2005 and it was open for the respondent-husband to bring this fact to the notice of the Court below with appropriate pleadings and simultaneously before the Court proceedings on the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 13. Having regard to the quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner-wife so also taking into consideration the fact that she is also in receipt of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month in view of the proceedings instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which are now subject matter of Criminal Misc. Petition before the High Court at Allahabad; I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20th January, 2009 for enhancement. The petitioner-wife is in receipt of more than 50% of the amount of salary of the respondent-husband. 14. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the impugned order dated 20th January, 2009, calls for no interference and/or enhancement. 15. Consequently, the writ application fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. No costs.