Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 846 (RAJ)

Rekha v. Narayanlal

2022-03-10

REKHA BORANA, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
ORDER 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Family Court, Rajsamand whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 preferred by the appellant-Smt. Rekha was partly allowed. Vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court rejected the prayer of the appellant for maintenance and allowed only an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation for each date when she would attend the court proceedings. 2. We have gone through the impugned order and the material available on record. 3. The Family Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant for maintenance only on the assertion of the respondent-husband that he had been terminated from his job during the Corona pandemic period and had not been in job since then. The said rejection of the learned Family Court cannot be said to be in consonance with the basic principles of law. It is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pratima Devi Vs. Anand Prakash reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 2310. It is equally a settled proposition of law that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court an interim maintenance is to be granted to the wife by the husband. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan reported in 2015 AIR (SC) 2025 held as under : '18. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.' 5. The objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal (MANU/MP/0398/2000: 2000(3) MPLJ 100 ): '............... That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.' 5. The objective of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal (MANU/MP/0398/2000: 2000(3) MPLJ 100 ): '............... Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, site idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help insolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendente lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.' 6. It is indirectly against healthyness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardising their hard earned income by toiling working hours.' 6. It has been pointed out by counsel for the appellant that the learned Presiding Officer has been passing orders in the similar pattern wherein the applications for maintenance are being partly allowed only to the extent of expenses qua cost of litigation for each hearing. Counsel has showed us one such similar order passed by the same officer in Civil Misc. No.128/2020 (Smt. Paras Vs. Narayan Lal). Against the said order an appeal was preferred before this Court being DB Civil Misc. Appeal No.785/2021 (Smt. Paras Vs. Narayan Lal) and order passed therein has also been produced for our perusal by counsel for the appellant. 7. Such approach cannot be appreciated by this Court. Such stereotype orders being passed by the Presiding Officer denying relief of maintenance to the wife is totally against the settled proposition of law. This Court, therefore, finds it appropriate to advise the learned Presiding Officer to adopt a pragmatic approach in future and decide the applications for maintenance while keeping in mind the provisions of law and the judgments governing the same. 8. So far as the present matter is concerned, learned counsel for the parties agree that till pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, Rajsamand, the respondent will pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost per hearing to the appellant with effect from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.03.2021. 9. In view of the above agreement between the parties, this Civil Misc. Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month qua maintenance with effect from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.03.2021. The respondent shall also pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost per hearing to the appellant. The arrears of monthly maintenance amount be paid by the respondent to the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from today. 10. The stay petition also stands disposed of.