Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 87 (ALL)

Manchal Sharma v. Bhawna

2019-01-09

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba on the application of the respondent filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Case No. 73 of 2018 (Manchal Sharma Vs. Smt Bhawna) filed by the appellant under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act wherein Rs.5000/-per month towards maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses has been awarded in favour of the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that after marriage the relations between the parties became strained and opposite party(wife) filed a case under section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, Raath, District Hamirpur against his husband (appellant) and his entire family. Thereafter, the appellant ( husband ) filed a case no. 73 of 2018 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba on 27.4.2018 and during the pendency of the said case, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses wherein a consolidated amount of Rs. 5000/-per month has been awarded towards maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. 4. In the said application, it has been stated by the opposite party that appellant (husband) used to harass her for demand of additional dowry and consequently she was ousted from her matrimonial home and now she is living with her parents, who is very poor and unable to maintain her. In the said application, it has been further averred that the appellant has sufficient source of income as he has let out his own land for installing a Tower of Airtel company and thereby he earns Rs. 10,000/-as rent and also earns a sum of Rs. 10,000/-by doing work in the said Tower. The appellant also owns a Tractor and agricultural land which yields sufficient crops. The appellant owns a buffalo and other cattles, as such he also earns about Rs. 3000/- from milk and dairy products. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not afforded proper opportunity to contest the application under section 24 of the Act and the court below passed the impugned order according to his own whims and fancy. 6. 3000/- from milk and dairy products. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not afforded proper opportunity to contest the application under section 24 of the Act and the court below passed the impugned order according to his own whims and fancy. 6. From perusal of the order sheet of the court below indicates that the appellant was given sufficient time to file his objection. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, it has no where been stated that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity of filing his objection before passing the impugned order. From perusal of the order sheet of the court below, which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, it transpires that the appellant was granted 15 days' time to file objection on 16.8.2018 fixing the matter for 31.8.2018. A copy of the objection, if any, has also not been filed along with the appeal. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, we are of the opinion that Rs.5000/-per month towards maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses would not be treated to be on higher side rather it is on lower side. Thus, we find that the court below has given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order and the same are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the court below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the court below is factually incorrect, manifestly illegal or perverse. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 8. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.