Radheyshyam Son of Shri Badri Narayan v. Meera Daughter of Ramkishore, Wife of Radheyshyam
2017-03-07
M.N.BHANDARI
body2017
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : M.N. BHANDARI, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th May, 2016, by which, application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after marriage of two sisters with two brothers in same family, girl hardly stayed for a day or two. The brother-in-law of the petitioner had taken the non-petitioner to her home thus direction for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is not maintainable. It is more so when, direction aforesaid has been given on an application moved by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights by invoking provisions of the Act of 1955 thus the impugned order may be set aside. It is also stated that petitioner is a labourer and cannot pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month and accumulated amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. The perusal of the order reveals that pending petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 was moved. It was stated that petitioner is earning around Rs.25,000/- per month, whereas, allegation of the petitioner was that even the non-petitioner is earning around Rs.6000/- per month. 5. Learned Court below had considered the issue and passed an order for interim maintenance @ of Rs.5000/- per month and benefit aforesaid was given from the date of application itself. The issue as to whether the non-petitioner stayed with the petitioner or not is not relevant for adjudication of the application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. It is also not a case where the petitioner submitted his pay slip to show his earning less than what has been alleged. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and as no evidence exists about earning of the non-petitioner; I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. The court below is, however, directed to decide the pending petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.