Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2293 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar v. Nikita Satyavir Budaniya

2019-08-26

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Jhunjhunu dated 31.05.2018. The Family Court by the impugned order has allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") and granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- pendente lite. 2. The appellant-husband has filed a petition under section 13 of the Act seeking decree of divorce against the respondent wife. 3. Mr. Nishant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the Family Court has noticed in the order that the respondent-wife has received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance pursuant to order dated 29.04.2016 passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), another sum of Rs. 10,000/- was granted pursuant to order of same date passed by same Court under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Sharma v. Smt. Gargi Sharma, D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2626/2018 dated 28.11.2018 and argued that the division bench in the aforesaid case has reduced the amount of maintenance granted to the wife in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- only to Rs. 15,000/- taking into consideration that while the respondent was living in rented house and paying the rent, the wife is living with her parents without incurring any liability to pay rent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent has passed out MBA and is earning sufficient money to maintain herself. Even if the appellant was not able to produce the evidence with regard to income, the Court can infer from the circumstances that she being an educated women is capable to maintain herself. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admission of the husband that he has received sum of Rs. 58,000/- per month as salary as resident Doctor in Orthopedics Department of SMS Govt. Hospital, Jaipur cannot be construed to mean that he is retaining entire money unto himself. He is also residing in a rented accommodation and paying a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He has the responsibility to also maintain his old aged parents. 58,000/- per month as salary as resident Doctor in Orthopedics Department of SMS Govt. Hospital, Jaipur cannot be construed to mean that he is retaining entire money unto himself. He is also residing in a rented accommodation and paying a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He has the responsibility to also maintain his old aged parents. The amount of maintenance therefore should be suitably reduced. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order, we find that the Family Court after having noticed that the respondent-wife is receiving a sum of Rs. 10,000/- pursuant to the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu and another Rs. 10,000/- pursuant to order passed by same Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned Family Court is directed that if respondent-wife is receiving the amount of maintenance pursuant to any other order passed by the Court, the same shall be adjusted the amount of maintenance granted by the impugned order. The orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 indicate that in both of them while a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each was granted to respondent-wife, another sum of Rs. 5,000/- in each of the orders was granted to the daughter. Thus, in total, the wife was in receipt of Rs. 20,000/-. When the Family Court in the impugned order has directed that the amount, which the respondent-wife receives under other orders should be adjusted against the amount, which has been ordered to be paid to her in the impugned order, we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The cited judgment in the case of Dinesh Sharma, supra on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant does not in any manner support his case. Even though, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant is also paying rent and therefore relying on the aforesaid judgment on which reliance is placed, the quantum of compensation should be reduced, but the distinguishing feature of the present case is that the respondent also has the responsibility to maintain a daughter. 9. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. 9. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. However, considering that the petition under Section 13 of the Act is fixed at the stage of evidence of the appellant-husband before the Family Court, we direct that the Family Court that the appellant shall not be permitted to produce more than three witnesses on their affidavit, if not already filed and produce them for their cross-examination before the Family Court on the next date or any other date within two months there from. The respondent shall not be granted more than three months thereafter to produce her affidavit and witnesses and present them before the Family Court for cross-examination. 10. The Family Court shall make endeavour to conclude the proceedings in the main petition under Section 13 of the Act within six months from the date next fixed before it. 11. Appeal is dismissed, however, with the aforesaid directions.