Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 674 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal v. Meena Narayan Lal

2021-03-23

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA, SANGEET LODHA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Family Court, Rajsamand in Civil Case No. 168/19, 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. 4,000/- per month, litigation expenses Rs. 7,000/- in lump sum and Rs. 200/- for attending each date of hearing. 2. The respondent preferred a petition against the appellant 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. 12,000/- per month, Advocate Fee Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 500/- towards travelling expenses to attend each date of hearing. 3. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income whereas the appellant is earning salary a sum of Rs. 25,000/- while working as Teacher in Tulsi Amrit School, Amet and Rs. 7 lacs from agriculture land ad measuring 32 bighas situated at Kameri. 4. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto and averred that the respondent has left his company without any justified reasons. She is operating a shop of grocery and also operating a beauty parlour and thus, earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It was averred that the appellant is studying in LL.B Second Year and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by doing part time computer work. 5. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Family Court arrived at the conclusion that the factum of respondent having source of income on the basis of the material on record is not established. Taking into consideration the material on record, the Family Court determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite and other expenses to the respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the contentions raised before the Family Court submitted that the respondent is earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and thus, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the contentions raised before the Family Court submitted that the respondent is earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and thus, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is ready to keep the respondent with him but she has left his company without any justifiable reason and thus, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 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. Admittedly, no evidence was brought on record by the appellant to establish that the respondent has her own source of income. Though, the appellant had denied his sources of income as alleged by the respondent but it was not even the case of the appellant that he has no source of income whatsoever. The factum of respondent deserting the appellant cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. 10. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent having any adequate source of income, in the considered opinion of this Court, after due consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month determined by the Family Court for the respondent and litigation expenses Rs. 7,000/- in lump sum and Rs. 200/- for attending each date of hearing, cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is devoid of any merit, it is hereby, dismissed.