Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1875 (RAJ)

Rohit Kumar v. Sadhna Devi

2019-07-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant husband against the order of the learned Family Court, Sikar passed on 4.5.2019. By this order, the learned Family Court decided the Matrimonial Civil Suit No. 147/2017 filed u/Ss. 18 and 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") with the directions to the appellant to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month maintenance to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2, who is minor son represented through his natural guardian mother w.e.f. March, 2017 for which respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive the maintenance on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was directed that the outstanding amount of maintenance w.e.f. March, 2017 to April, 2019 would be paid in four equal installments within two years. The maintenance amount with effect from May, 2019 would be paid on every 5th of the month to the respondent No. 1 or the amount would be deposited in bank on her furnishing the bank account number to the appellant. It was further directed to the appellant to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent No. 1 till divorce and if the respondent No. 1 divorced, then to remarry. The maintenance amount for respondent No. 2 would continue till he gets majority. In case, the respondent wife is getting any maintenance by other order's, that shall be adjusted from this amount. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.5.2011 according to the Hindu rites and customs at village Shishyu, Dantaramgarh. Right from the very beginning, the behavior of mother-in-law was not good. Her in-laws demanded for sufficient dowry but she always tolerated. From the wedlock of their marriage, one male child namely Sumit was born on 30.11.2014. Respondent No. 1 gave a birth to the second child in her parent's home on 20.11.2016. Respondent wife lodged FIR No. 223/2016 at Police Station Ranauli against the appellant and her mother-in-law for offence u/Ss. 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 4.5.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent wife left the matrimonial home on 14.9.2016 without information to the appellant. 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 4.5.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent wife left the matrimonial home on 14.9.2016 without information to the appellant. He submitted that the respondent wife does not want to reside with the appellant. The appellant is earning only Rs. 7,000/- per month from the shop. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that the appellant cannot pay a sum of Rs. 19,000/- per month as apart from an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month (Rs. 6,000/- for wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the child), a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid towards the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. So, the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court be set aside. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the appellant, perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 5. The appellant did not establish any evidence in the learned Family Court that the respondent wife had an adequate source of income to maintain herself and her minor son. Learned Family Court in its order observed that the appellant had given statement before police that he had a shop for light and water fittings at Palsana. These facts were affirmed by him in his cross-examination. Learned Family Court also observed that the appellant had produced fee receipt of his son of Rs. 3300/- for 1st term. This shows that the appellant has sufficient source of income. It is moral and legal duty of husband to maintain his wife and children. Respondent wife also have to look after her minor children. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant cannot pay a sum of Rs. 19,000/- per month as apart from an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month (Rs. 6,000/- for wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the child), a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid towards the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. 19,000/- per month as apart from an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month (Rs. 6,000/- for wife and Rs. 3,000/- for the child), a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid towards the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the application. If that be so, it would be open to the appellant to make a suitable application before the Family Court to reduce the monthly amount of arrears to a reasonable sum for being paid in future. So, the above mentioned maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Hence, the appeal along with stay application stands dismissed.