Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1905 (RAJ)

Rinki Devi v. Santosh Kumar Sharma

2018-09-12

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. Challenge in the instant civil misc. appeal has been 5 made to the order dated 20.01.2015 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Alwar (Rajasthan) dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order has erred in not 10 considering the facts that the appellant is having two children; one boy Khush Vyas, aged 9 years and another girl Kashish @ Mamta aged 11 years and both are living with the present appellant. The boy Khush Vyas is studying in Vllth standard and the girl Kashish @ Mamta is studying in Vlth standard. The appellant is having no source of income as she is living separately from her 15 husband (respondent herein). The respondent (husband) is working on the post of LDC in the Court and getting Rs.25,000/- p.m. as salary. There is every likelihood that hearing of the divorce petition may take considerable time. Learned counsel further contended that in the case of Virendra Kumar v. Smt. Santosh Devi, AIR 1988 Raj. 128 , it has been observed that “earlier 20 decision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is no bar in deciding application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955”. Learned counsel also contended that merely because husband denied factum of marriage, right of wife to get maintenance pendent lite does not come to an end till the main proceeding is finally decided. Thus, the appellant be granted total Rs.20,000/- p.m. as 25 maintenance (Rs.10,000/- per month for her maintenance, Rs.5,000/- p.m. for study of both the children, Rs.5,000/- p.m. for the welfare of both the children) and Rs.500/- to the appellant as travel expenses for attending each hearing of the court proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent (husband) vociferously opposed 30 the appeal and submitted that the salary of the respondent is hardly Rs.25,000/- p.m. and with regard of monthly income of the respondent (husband), produced the salary slip. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent (husband) vociferously opposed 30 the appeal and submitted that the salary of the respondent is hardly Rs.25,000/- p.m. and with regard of monthly income of the respondent (husband), produced the salary slip. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is having two minor kids who are studying in 35 Vllth and Vlth Standards, the appellant is residing separately, there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant is having any source of permanent income as the respondent indisputably is in permanent job and working on the post of LDC, we allow the appeal of the appellant in part. The impugned Judgment is set aside. Maintenance is granted Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the 40 appellant, which would be payable from October 2018 onwards.