Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2692 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam Jangid v. Shushma Royal

2019-10-17

SANGEET LODHA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 9.8.18 passed by the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Case No.21/17 (13/15), whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed. The appellant has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per month as expenses for attending each date of hearing. 2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as doctor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and earning a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month as salary. That apart, the appellant owns a factory on the Jodhpur-Pali Highway and earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month as rent and has income of sum of Rs.5 lacs per annum from the agriculture land measuring 150 bighas situated in villages Manveda and Jakhad. It was further averred that the appellant has invested money in share market and earning Rs.2 lacs per month. 3. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto. The factum of the appellant being employed in AIIMS as doctor was not denied, however, it was denied that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month. It is averred that after compulsory deduction, he was drawing only a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month as salary, but now, his contract with AIIMS has come to an end. The appellant averred that he has established his own clinic and earning a meagre amount. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court determined the maintenance pendente lite payable to the respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is no more in employment of the AIIMS and therefore, he has no source of income from salary as alleged. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court determined the maintenance pendente lite payable to the respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is no more in employment of the AIIMS and therefore, he has no source of income from salary as alleged. It is submitted that the appellant, a dentist, has established his own clinic after taking loan of Rs.8 lacs from his relatives. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no sufficient income. It is submitted that the substantial amount of the appellant's income is spent for treatment of ailing parents and thus, he is not in position to give any amount as maintenance to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the respondent is preparing for RAS exams. and thus, she being an educated woman, is in position to earn her livelihood and therefore, cannot claim any maintenance from the appellant. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. 8. Admittedly, the appellant is doctor, who was earning sufficient income as salary while employed in the AIIMS. The appellant being dentist, operating his own clinic, must be earning a reasonable income which is not disclosed by him in reply to the application filed. It is true that the income of the appellant from other sources as pleaded was not established by any cogent evidence on record, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Family Court regarding the income of the appellant from the profession of doctor, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. It is true that the income of the appellant from other sources as pleaded was not established by any cogent evidence on record, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Family Court regarding the income of the appellant from the profession of doctor, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. No evidence whatsoever was produced by the appellant to establish that the respondent has any independent source of income. 9. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent having any adequate source of income, the amount of maintenance pendente lite determined by the Family Court does not appear to be excessive so as to warrant any interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 10. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant, shall not preclude the respondent from filing the appeal for enhancement of the maintenance, if so advised, or from pursuing the appeal, if any, already filed.