Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 239 (ALL)

Jitendra v. Neetu

2020-01-21

SHASHI KANT GUPTA, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT

body2020
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar in Marriage Petition No. 311 of 2019 (Smt. Neetu Versus Jitendra) arising out of original suit (Marriage petition) No. 1367 of 2018 (Jitendra Versus Neetu) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the application of the opposite party/respondent filed under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in the original suit (marriage petition) No. 1367 of 2018 has been partly allowed awarding Rs.4,000/-per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, Rs. 1000/-to her son, Rs. 12,000/-lump sum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/-for attending the Court on each date of hearing. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings given by the court below are illegal, arbitrary and are based on complete misreading of the case and misconception of legal position relevant to the matter and has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered the fact that the appellant is an unemployed person and does not have any source of income, more over, he has to support his son and his old mother also. On the other hand, the respondent-wife has sufficient source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. Perusal of the record shows a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "Act") was filed by the appellant (husband) against the respondent (wife) and during the pendency of the said suit, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the respondent for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. In the said application, the respondent-wife claimed Rs.25,000/-per month towards maintenance pendente lite, Rs.25,0000/-towards litigation expenses and Rs.3000/-for attending the Court on each date of hearing. 4. In the said application, it has been alleged by the respondent that she does not have any source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. It has been further alleged that the appellant-husband owns two houses, one in Bulandshahar and another one in Noida. Apart from that, the appellant-husband is doing a Job in a private company from where he earns around Rs.30,000/- per month 5. It has been further alleged that the appellant-husband owns two houses, one in Bulandshahar and another one in Noida. Apart from that, the appellant-husband is doing a Job in a private company from where he earns around Rs.30,000/- per month 5. In reply, the appellant had filed his objection stating that he is an unemployed person and does not have any source of income but admitted that he is an educated person and has also done Computer course. It has also been admitted by him that earlier he was employed in the Noida based private firm on the post of Operator, however, later on, he had resigned from the said post. It has been further admitted by the appellant that he has got two houses, one in Bulandshahar and another one in Noida, wherein the daughter of the appellant is staying along with the respondent-wife. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below awarded Rs.4,000/-per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, Rs. 1000/-to her son, Rs. 12,000/-lump sum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/-for attending the Court on each date of hearing. 7. The appellant being a husband of the opposite party, even if he is not in any employment, is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and his children in any circumstances. The husband can not be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain his wife. In the present case, as the appellant has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now, it is settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife and children arises, the presumption would be easily permissible against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal. 8. 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.4,000/-per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, Rs. 1000/-to her son, Rs. 12,000/-lump sum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/-for attending the Court on each date of hearing can not be treated to be on a higher side. 9. 1000/-to her son, Rs. 12,000/-lump sum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/-for attending the Court on each date of hearing can not be treated to be on a higher side. 9. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while awarding the maintenance and legal expenses. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned order and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the court below which may warrant any interference. 10. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.