Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 108 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal v. Neetu

2018-01-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant D.B. Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant husband Shyam Lal against the judgment dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Case No. 301/2014 whereby an application filed by the appellant husband under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. Alongwith the appeal, an application has been filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 39 days in filing this appeal. 2. Upon application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have examined the order dated 9.6.2016 also passed by the learned Family Court rejecting the application filed by the appellant Shyam Lal under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which he has prayed for maintenance from his wife Smt. Neetu in whose favour divorce decree was granted by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge Neemuch (MP) on 29.6.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Smt. Neetu 14 years back. For some time, her behaviour was satisfactory, but thereafter, she started quarrelling without any reason and from last 10 years, she is residing with her parents. It is also submitted that before 7 years, his wife Smt. Neetu was appointed as ASI in the Railway Department and all efforts were made by him to live together, but she was not interested to perform her duties. Therefore, an application was moved by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 2.8.2011 in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, but the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent Smt. Neetu under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of learned Addl. Sessions & District Judge, Neemuch (MP) and the said court passed the divorce decree vide order dated 29.6.2013. Therefore, the application of the appellant filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. According to the appellant, the appeal against the divorce petition is pending in the MP High Court. 4. Sessions & District Judge, Neemuch (MP) and the said court passed the divorce decree vide order dated 29.6.2013. Therefore, the application of the appellant filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. According to the appellant, the appeal against the divorce petition is pending in the MP High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the application filed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act a prayer was made that although the appellant was working in the Sudarshan News Channel, but due to mental agony arising out form the quarrel with the respondent wife, he is not in position to work and he is not in position to earn means for his maintenance, whereas the respondent Smt. Neetu is working on the post of ASI and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, therefore, a prayer was made for granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- and permanent alimony of Rs. 10 lacs, but the family court rejected the application. 5. It emerges from the order impugned that the application was contested by the respondent wife Smt. Neetu, therefore, after framing two issues, the learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that in para No. 8 of the divorce decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Neemuch, the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act was considered in which respondent Smt. Neetu specifically made prayer that she is interested to get any maintenance from the appellant at present or in future and further said that she will claim any right in the movable or immovable property of her husband and relinquish her all rights. No reply was filed by the appellant to the said application filed by the respondent wife in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Neemuch, so also, no prayer was made by the appellant in the court of learned Addl. District Judge Neemuch in the proceedings initiated against him for divorce decree to claim any right under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the learned Family Court rejected the application of appellant on the ground that both the issues framed in the proceedings initiated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are proved by him. 6. District Judge Neemuch in the proceedings initiated against him for divorce decree to claim any right under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the learned Family Court rejected the application of appellant on the ground that both the issues framed in the proceedings initiated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act are proved by him. 6. Upon consideration of finding of the learned Family Court, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Family Court so as to pas an order for maintenance because appellant is disputing fact that respondent is his wife and both the issues were born from their wedlock. 7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in this appeal which is filed after delay of 39 days. 8. Consequently, instant appeal is hereby dismissed on merits as well as on delay.