Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 392 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. Sita Devi

2019-02-04

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2019
JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur (for short 'the Family Court') whereby application filed by the respondents under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), in the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act seeking divorce, has been partly allowed, directing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Respondent No. 1, wife as interim maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- to Respondent No. 2, son of the appellant. Apart from that, a sum of Rs. 3,000 has also been granted to the respondents towards litigation expenses. 2. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that already earlier the same Court vide order dated 6.8.2016 granted Rs. 5,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 1,000 per month to Respondent No. 2-son in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. as maintenance. Same consideration would apply to application under Section 24 of the Act and therefore additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- could not be awarded by the Family Court to Respondent No. 1-wife. It is also argued that sum of Rs. 2,000 which has been ordered to be paid to Respondent No. 2, son of the parties in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act is illegal as there is no such provision in the scope of Section 24 of the Act to award maintenance to the minor child. 3. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that learned Family Court has directed that if the respondent-wife is in receipt of any other amount as maintenance pursuant to order of any other Court, the said amount shall be liable to be adjusted against the amount of Rs. 10,000 which has now been awarded to Respondent No. 1 vide impugned order. It is true that the Family Court could not have awarded maintenance to the minor child aged four years in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act but at the same time it must also be considered that the amount quantified for the minor child is only Rs. 2,000/- and amount to be paid to the respondent-wife is Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the respondent No. 1-wife would be entitled to receive only Rs. 10,000/- in total as the amount being received by her in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be adjusted against that. 2,000/- and amount to be paid to the respondent-wife is Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the respondent No. 1-wife would be entitled to receive only Rs. 10,000/- in total as the amount being received by her in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be adjusted against that. Impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be corrected to the extent that amount of Rs. 2,000/-, which has been ordered to be paid to minor child in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act shall be treated to have been ordered to be paid to the child in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and the respondent-wife shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only pursuant to that order, thus a total of Rs. 12,000. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Stay Application No. 4664/2018 also stands disposed of.