Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 445 (RAJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. Deepika Kanwar @ Parbat Kanwar

2019-02-06

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Civil Misc. Application No. 01/18:- 1. For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is allowed. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2298/2018:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge is to the judgment dated 21.02.2018 granting respondent Rs. 7,000/-per month as maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rs. 400/- for attending every Court hearing have also been directed to be paid. One time litigation expenses in sum of Rs. 5,000/- have been directed to be paid. 3. Challenge in the appeal is to the monthly maintenance awarded. 4. The impugned order notes that as per the respondent the appellant was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. There was two components; first was salary earned while working with a TV Cable Network and the second was agriculture income. The impugned order notes that the respondent failed to prima facie establish any income from agriculture. The respondent also prima facie failed to establish the salary received by the appellant as an employee in a TV Cable Network. Appellants version that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month has been dis-believed. 5. The impugned order gives no reason as to why Rs. 7,000/- per month has been awarded. 6. In proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. where similar claim was made, evidence was led. In said proceedings the respondent admitted earning Rs. 3,000/- per month through avocation of stitching clothes in house. In said proceedings order dated 18.11.2016 was passed noting that the respondent led no evidence of appellant having any agricultural land. Appellants version that he was receiving wages in sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month was negated on the ground that the appellant should have led evidence of the salary received because it was evidenced in his personal knowledge. 7. In view of the fact that the respondent has no evidence of appellant earning any money from agricultural activity and the only evidence being appellant working in a TV Cable network, coupled with the fact that the respondent admits earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. Noting that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the appellant is paying to the respondent Rs. 3,000/- per month we dispose of the appeal setting aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 in so far maintenance has been awarded. The appellant shall pay respondent Rs. 3,000/- per month, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. Noting that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the appellant is paying to the respondent Rs. 3,000/- per month we dispose of the appeal setting aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 in so far maintenance has been awarded. The appellant shall pay respondent Rs. 3,000/- per month as per the order dated 18.11.2016 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He shall also comply with the rest of the order.