Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 205 (RAJ)

Jitendar Kumar Balecha v. Chitra Arora

2020-01-22

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 6.12.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Petition No.83/18 (CIS No.477/18), 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 and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period from 27.8.18 to 30.11.19 and further to pay Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.12.19. 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, litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- and Rs.500/- for attending each date of hearing before the Family Court. 3. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant has various sources of income. It was averred that the appellant is running a school, wherein 1100 students are studying. That apart, he is also earning from E-mitra kiosk being operated by him. According to the respondent, the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 4. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that he has no source of income and he is totally dependent on his father. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the Family Court arrived at the finding that respondent is working as Teacher in Shanti Bal Niketan School. The Family Court opined that as a Teacher, the appellant must be earning minimum 1,000/- per day and thus, he has minimum income of Rs.30,000/- per month. Accordingly, the maintenance pendente lite payable by the appellant for the respondent herself and her minor daughter has been determined by the Family Court as Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly not disputed that the appellant is working as Teacher in a private school, however, it is submitted that his monthly salary is much less than the salary determined by the Family Court. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly not disputed that the appellant is working as Teacher in a private school, however, it is submitted that his monthly salary is much less than the salary determined by the Family Court. It is submitted that the respondent-wife has left the company of the appellant without any reason and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. 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. 9. It is pertinent to note that before the Family Court, the respondent had taken the stand that he had no source of income and he is dependent upon his father whereas, before this Court it is not disputed that the appellant is working as Teacher in a private school. Though, it is stated that the appellant is not earning Rs.30,000/- per month as determined by the Family Court but, the appellant has not fairly disclosed his actual monthly salary. It is true that the income of the appellant from various 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 keeping in view the job wherein he is engaged, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. The respondent deserting the appellant cannot be a ground for denying maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. The respondent deserting the appellant cannot be a ground for denying maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. The respondent has responsibility to maintain her minor daughter as well and thus, the amount of maintenance payable by the appellant to the respondent during the pendency of the petition a sum of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. Further, it is noticed that instead of awarding maintenance for the period from 27.8.18 to 30.11.19 @ Rs.10,000/- per month, only Rs.50,000/- lump sum has been awarded and no amount has been awarded for litigation expenses. 10. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is made out. 11. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.