Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2504 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar v. Sagarika Prasad

2018-11-19

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Matrimonial Suit No.314 of 2016, is aggrieved of order dated 20.06.2017 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1500/- per month to his minor child as maintenance pendente-lite besides Rs.10000/- as litigation cost. 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unemployed and he has no independent source of income. 3. Matrimonial Suit No.314 of 2016 has been instituted for a decree for divorce under section 13 (1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Before that, Matrimonial Suit No.52 of 2011 was instituted by the petitioner seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. The suit was decreed partly vide judgment dated 04.04.2013, however, only to the extent that the decree of judicial separation was granted. This was an ex-parte judgment. The respondent-wife filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in the suit. She, in the mean-time, filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. These applications were registered as Misc. Case No. 35 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.36 of 2013. The learned trial judge declined to set-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in Matrimonial Suit No.52 of 2011, however, no order was passed in Misc. Case No.36 of 2013. Judgment dated 04.04.2013 passed in Matrimonial Suit No.52 of 2011 and order dated 27.09.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.35 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.36 of 2013 were challenged by the respondent-wife in First Appeal No.566 of 2014. By order dated 07.05.2015, it was held that the First Appeal at this stage need not be entertained, however, it was ordered that the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be decided on its own merits. 4. The respondent-wife in her application seeking interim maintenance has pleaded that at the time of their marriage the petitioner was employed with M/s Mahendra & Mahendra, Ranchi and his monthly salary was Rs.20000/- with other allowances amounting to Rs.8000/- per month. She has asserted that on 30.07.2008, a female child was born out of the wedlock and at the time of filing of the application, she was studying in Standard-III in Sharda Public School, Jamshedpur. She has asserted that on 30.07.2008, a female child was born out of the wedlock and at the time of filing of the application, she was studying in Standard-III in Sharda Public School, Jamshedpur. Her father is a retired person and his only source of income is his pension and the applicant is completely dependent on her father. Though the petitioner has denied that he has a house at Ashok Nagar worth Rs.1 crore and he has other independent source of income, in my opinion, as long as the marriage between the parties is not disputed, the husband is liable, not only in law but also under a pious obligation, to maintain his wife and the minor child. The respondent-wife has asserted that the petitioner has failed to maintain her and their minor child and this stand of the respondent-wife has not been controverted by the petitioner by producing any evidence that he has supported his wife and the minor child. The trial judge after taking note of the rival contentions and the materials on record has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5500/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite to his wife and the minor child. 5. In the above facts, I find no ground to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.