Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 170 (RAJ)

Ameda Ram S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram v. Surta Devi W/o Shri Ameda Ram

2017-01-13

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 13.4.16 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Naguar, 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 to the respondent, a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as the maintenance pendente lite and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’), against the respondent. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and the litigation expenses Rs.10,000/- in lump sum. The court by the order impugned has directed the petitioner to pay the respondent maintenance and litigation expenses as indicated above. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having no source of income, however, the learned Judge has allowed the application preferred without recording any finding in this regard. Learned counsel submitted that no finding has been recorded regarding the income of the respondent either. That apart, drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 13.7.16 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, it is submitted that the petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance a sum of Rs.1,500/- under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act of 2005’) as well and therefore, the order impugned directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance pendente lite is unjustified. 4. 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. 5. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. 5. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. It has come on record that the petitioner is earning the income from agriculture a sum of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.10,000/- per month by way of tuition fee. Thus, on the overall consideration of the matter, the interim maintenance a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month determined by the court below for the maintenance of the respondent cannot be said to be in higher side. 6. Coming to the contention of the petitioner regarding the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under the Act of 2005, it is to be noticed that the said order is passed by the court subsequent to the passing of the order of interim maintenance as aforesaid and therefore, it was always open for the petitioner to bring the factum of passing of the order impugned herein granting interim maintenance under Section 24 to the notice of the said court. In any case on account of order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under the Act of 2005, subsequent to the order impugned passed on the application preferred under Section 24 of the Act, cannot be held to be illegal. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.