Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 320 (UTT)

Santosh Singh Airi v. Sunita Aithani

2021-06-21

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. - The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 08.04.2021, passed by the Family Court, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the learned Family Court has granted a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent, wife. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 07.03.2019 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On 16.11.2020, they were blessed with a son. However, according to the respondent (wife), she was not only physically and mentally tortured for dowry, but also on 03.08.2020, she was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial house. Since then, she has been living with her widowed mother. Meanwhile, the appellant (husband) has filed a divorce petition against the respondent (wife). Moreover, since the respondent (wife) is living with her mother, she is not in a position to look-after either herself, or her small child. Therefore, the respondent had filed an Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente lite. 3. By the impugned order dated 08.04.2021, the learned Family Court has granted the maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, this Appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submit that since the respondent (wife) has filed a criminal case against the appellant (husband), and has informed his employer. Thereafter, the employer is threatening to dismiss him from the service. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is not in a position to maintain his wife and the child. Moreover, according to him, the respondent (wife) is able to take a job for herself. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned order. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Court has noticed the fact that the appellant (husband) is earning Rs. 58,000/- per month. Moreover, even if the appellant (husband) were to lose the job, even then he is legally duty bound to maintain his wife and the child. Moreover, there is no evidence to show the fact that the respondent (wife) was ever employed, or at present she has any job in her hand. 7. Considering the fact that the appellant (husband) is earning Rs. Moreover, there is no evidence to show the fact that the respondent (wife) was ever employed, or at present she has any job in her hand. 7. Considering the fact that the appellant (husband) is earning Rs. 58,000/- per month, and considering the fact that it is his legal duty to maintain his wife and the child, the grant of the maintenance of merely Rs. 6,000/- per month is certainly not an unreasonable amount. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. 10. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed-of. 11. No order as to costs.