Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 695 (RAJ)

Sunil Yadav v. Poonam Yadav

2022-02-28

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/non-applicant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (for short 'the act of 1955') challenging the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Court of learned additional District Judge No.1, Behrod, District alwar (Raj.) [for short 'the Court below'] in case No. 47/2018, whereby application filed by the respondent-applicant under Section 24 of the act of 1955 has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-applicant. 2. Skeleton facts of this case are that the appellant has 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 a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance pendente lite from the appellant. The respondent averred in the said application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as Inspector in Indo Tibetan Border, Police Force and drawing salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month. 3. The appellant contested the application by way of filing reply thereto. The factum of the appellant being engaged as Inspector in Indo Tibetan Border, Police Force has not been denied, however, it is submitted that the respondent is earning Rs. 50,753/- per month, but no document with regard to her income has been produced on the record. It was also stated in the reply that the respondent is an educated lady and she is capable of earning Rs.25-30,000/- per month. In reply, the appellant denied the averments made in the application and prayed for rejection of the application. 4. after due consideration the rival submissions and the material available on the record, the Court below determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite and other expenses to the respondent as aforesaid. 5. Hence appeal. 6. In the memo of appeal, the appellant has mentioned that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- has already been ordered to be paid to the respondent by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behrod. Hence, there is no need to pass any further order for payment of any additional amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent. 7. 7,000/- has already been ordered to be paid to the respondent by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behrod. Hence, there is no need to pass any further order for payment of any additional amount of maintenance in favour of the respondent. 7. I have considered the documents and perused the material available on the 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/her own sufficient for his/her 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 herself or himself for want of independent income or adequacy of income to maintain the level of social status of other spouse. No hard and fast rule can be led down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance. 9. admittedly, the appellant is employed as Inspector in Indo Tibetan Border, Police Force and he is getting salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month. The Court below after hearing both the sides and considering the material available on the record found that no document with regard to income of the respondent was produced. 10. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent having any adequate source of income, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the Court below determining the amount of maintenance pendente lite and other expenses payable to the respondent does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 , the subordinate Court has rightly granted maintenance with effect from the date of filing the application. 11. However, it is observed that if the respondent is getting any amount in other proceedings like under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the appellant is given liberty to move proper application for adjusting the amount of maintenance as per the judgment of Rajnesh (supra). If any application is submitted, the Court below is directed to hear and decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. 12. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 13. If any application is submitted, the Court below is directed to hear and decide the same in accordance with law after hearing both the sides. 12. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 13. all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.