Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 928 (ALL)

PRATIMA YADAV v. VINOD KUMAR YADAV

2017-04-04

SATYA NARAIN AGNIHOTRI, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Satya Narain Agnihotri, J.—Being aggrieved with the order of learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar dated 6.9.2014, appellant Smt. Pratima Yadav prefer this appeal, whereby learned Principle Judge, Family Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- legal expenses and Rs. 500/- alimony per month from the date of institution of the suit till date of disposal. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was married with respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav on 21.11.2000. Later on they developed differences and started living separately. On 27.11.2004, appellant solemnized second marriage with one Shri Om Prakash as per pleading of respondent. When respondent came to know about the second marriage of appellant, he filed family suit No. 259 of 2004, Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Pratima Yadav, for the dissolution of the marriage. 3. Appellant submitted her written statement in the suit and she claimed legal expenses as well as alimony. The application for alimony was rejected by the learned Judge Family Court. The matter was agitated in the Court of learned District Judge, who set aside the order of the Judge Family Court and ordered to decide the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act afresh. During the pendency of this application, respondent moved an application for withdrawal of suit. Which was allowed by the Court on payment of Rs. 4,00/- as cost. 4. Feeling aggrieved with this order dated 12.1.2012, appellant again filed an appeal in this very Court and same was allowed on 30.4.2013 with direction to trial Court to dispose application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned Principle Judge Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar decided this application on 14.8.2013 granting Rs. 10,000/- legal expenses and Rs. 500/- per month alimony to the appellant. 5. Respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav did not choose to participate in the proceedings of this Court, hence, the learned counsel for the appellant was heard. 6. We have perused the order of the learned Judge Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, in Family Court Suit No. 259 of 2004 passed on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act dated 6.9.2014. 7. It is admitted by the parties as disclosed in the judgment of learned Principle Judge that respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav is a Dr. and is practicing in the field of medicine. 7. It is admitted by the parties as disclosed in the judgment of learned Principle Judge that respondent Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav is a Dr. and is practicing in the field of medicine. The appellant had submitted few documents in support of the income of the opposite party in the Family Court, which discloses that the opposite party is a well to do person. One can very well imagine and draw inference that now a days, the income of a Dr. cannot be less than 50,000/- per month if he is a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgeon in Aloepathy Science. 8. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant is an Advocate and as per the pleadings of the respondent. Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, she is practicing in law in the Civil Court, Lucknow as well as in the High Court Bench Lucknow, but no evidence or document has produced in support of his contention. Thus, the income of the appellant is not proved, she may be an Advocate but it could not be said that the appellant has sufficient income from her profession to maintain herself. 9. The perusal of the order does not disclose that, how the learned Trial Court had arrived at this conclusion that the alimony Rs. 500/- per month shall be sufficient for the maintenance of appellant. The status of the parties is of high standard as evident from the pleadings of the parties that’s why Rs. 500/- per month alimony is a very very meagre amount in our opinion. 10. As far as, the question of legal expenses is concern, we are of the considered view that the appellant is the law knowing lady she might defend herself in the Court of law without the help of any other advocate. That’s why the amount of the legal expenses awarded by learned Principle Judge Family Court is sufficient and does not warranted to interfere by this Court. 11. As far as as, the question of monthly alimony is concern, we feel that it is in the lower side, seeing the status of the parties. Since the opposite party Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav is a Dr., certainly he would be indulged in the medical practice and could earn not less than 50,000/- per month. Opposite party has agricultural land and house in Akbarpur town, which is also the source of income. Since the opposite party Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav is a Dr., certainly he would be indulged in the medical practice and could earn not less than 50,000/- per month. Opposite party has agricultural land and house in Akbarpur town, which is also the source of income. Seeing the status of the parties we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- per month alimony from the date of institution of the suit till the disposal of the suit on 12.10.2012 for her maintenance. 12. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Family Court is hereby modified and enhance per month interim alimony from 500/- to 5,000/- and the partly, confirmed regarding the legal expenses. 13. No order as to costs. Record of learned Trial Judge if summoned be sent back at once.