Allahabad High Court
Vikram Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 20 April, 2023
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 1 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 85 of 2023 Appellant :- Vikram Chaturvedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shikhar Chaube,Saubhagya Mishra Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Om Prakash Shukla, J. (Oral) (1) Heard Shri Shikhar Chaube, learned Counsel representing the appellant. Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking deletion of respondent no.1 from the array of the parties, application is allowed.
(2) Let the name of respondent no.1 be deleted from the array of the parties and respondent no.2 be renumbered as respondent no.1. Necessary corrections in the memo of appeal shall be incorporated by learned Counsel for the appellant during course of the day.
Order on Appeal (3) Through the instant First Appeal under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/husband, Vikram Chaturvedi, has challenged the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, whereby application filed by respondent no.1/wife (Smt. Priyanka alias Roli) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Regular Suit No. 884 of 2021 : Vikram Chaturvedi Vs. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed and she has been awarded lump sum amount of Rs.2000/- towards expenses for filing written statement and Rs. 3000/- per month towards travel expenses, litigation expenses and interim maintenance till disposal of the suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(4) The brief facts of the case culled out from the record available before us are that the appellant/husband has filed a suit, numbered as Regular Suit No. 884 of 2021, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1955' for the sake of brevity). In the aforesaid suit, the respondent no.1/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein she pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 01.12.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals; on 30.08.2021, the appellant and his family members have turned her out of her matrimonial home and have deserted her and after having been turned out of her matrimonial home, she is residing with her parents. Respondent no.1/wife further pleaded that her husband (appellant) is working in a Limited Company at New Delhi, from which he earns Rs.50,000/- as salary and in addition to that, he also has an additional agriculture income of Rs.20,000/-. Respondent no.1/wife has further pleaded that she does not have any source of income nor has she any skill by which she can maintain herself. In this backdrop, the respondent no.1/wife prayed to award Rs.5000/- towards expenses for filing written statement and Rs. 5000/- per month towards fee of Advocate and legal expenses etc. (5) The appellant filed objection against the aforesaid application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein he admitted the fact that the respondent no.1 is his wife. The appellant has further stated in his objection that during the stay at the parental house, the parents of respondent no.1/wife got her married to Sunil Kumar Tiwari alias Guddu Tiwari, son of late Ram Sakal Tiwari, resident of Arisiya, hamlet of Sanvardhir, Police Station Haiderganj, District Ayodhya and on coming to know about the second marriage, it has been stated by the appellant that he has filed a complaint case under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bearing Criminal Case No. 557 of 2022 : Vikram Vs. Priyanka and others, under Sections 494, 504, 506 I.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur. Appellant has also stated that presently, his wife/respondent no.1 is pregnant of about five months. Appellant has also enclosed a photograph of his wife/respondent no.1 along with the said Sunil Kumar in his objection. In this background, appellant has prayed for rejection of the application filed by his wife/respondent no.1 under Section 24 of the Act, 1955.
(6) Apparently, vide an order dated 06.02.2023, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, has allowed the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 of the respondent no.1/wife, awarding lump sum amount of Rs.2000/- towards expenses for filing written statement and Rs.3000/- per month towards travel expenses, litigation expenses and interim maintenance to her, till disposal of the regular suit under Section 13 of the Act, 1955.
(7) The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to questionnaire annexed as Annexure No.6 to the instant First Appeal and has argued that in compliance of the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in the Criminal Case No. 236 of 2022, the Station House Officer, Lambhua has investigated the matter under Section 202 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted its report before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.37, Sultanpur, stating therein that accused-Priyanka alias Roli (respondent no.1/wife herein) has performed the second marriage but the name of the husband to whom she has married could not be traced out during the investigation. Submission is that from the aforesaid report of the Station House Officer, Lambhua, prima facie, it is established that even before the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and his wife/respondent no.1, the respondent no.1/wife has solemnized second marriage with one Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari alias Guddu Tiwari and as such the appellant has no obligation to provide maintenance to his wife, but while passing the impugned order, learned Principal Judge, Sultanpur, has failed to consider the aforesaid facts and also the fact that respondent no.1/wife has committed the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 I.P.C., hence, in the aforesaid background, the impugned order dated 06.02.2023 is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
(8) We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and have also perused the records available before us on this appeal.
(9) Before analyzing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be apt to discuss the intent of Section 24 of the Act, 1955. For this purpose, Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which is relevant in the present context, reads as under :-
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings: Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner' s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."
(10) A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that intention of the legislature is that where, in any proceedings, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, order the respondent to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceeding. These words make the intention of the legislature quite clear that expenses have to be allowed by the Court, as a support system, if the requirement as provided under Section 24 of Act, 1955 are fulfilled for a period during the pendency of the suit or proceeding.
(11) The cause of action for filing a case under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 would arise only when there is a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband or wife. Therefore, the primary requirement for claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding. This provision was introduced with a laudable object of ensuring "support and maintenance" to a party in the proceeding so as to enable him or her to maintain themselves during the pendency of such proceedings. This provision also permits the Court to award a reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting the matrimonial proceeding. There is no ceiling limit prescribed for the purpose of granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeks to maintain an equilibrium between the two parties to the litigation during the pendency of the proceeding as it makes provision for payment of as and towards support and maintenance for a party who is in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to diligently contest the proceeding on account of poor economic condition.
(12) In the instant case, the question before us, under the facts and circumstances of the case, would be ''whether allegation of second marriage of the respondent no.1/wife during pendency of the divorce petition raised by the husband/appellant, would deter the Court to grant a statutory right vested upon the wife'. It is to be remembered in this context that only an allegation of second marriage of respondent no.1/wife has been raised by the appellant/husband against the respondent no.1/wife and it is a fact yet to be proved by adducing cogent evidence by the appellant/husband to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, in allowing a special benefit bestowed upon a party in view of the objective to be achieved by the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1955, cannot be faulted with for the simple reason that the allegation by the appellant are at a very nascent stage, veracity of which is still to be examined by a competent Court of law and in any case if such a position is not accepted, in every case an unscrupulous husband or wife, as the case may be, can always raise such an allegation against the spouse to avoid any liability to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance, which, according to this Court, would not be the legislative intent while enacting such a beneficial provision in the Act, 1955.
(13) Recently, this Court in First Appeal Defective No. 17 of 2023 (Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs. Nidhi Singh), vide order dated 11.04.2023, had an occasion to observe the meaning and import of Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which is squarely applicable to the present case in hand. This Court, in paragraph-14 of the aforesaid case, has held as under :-
"14. It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is a piece of beneficial legislation and as such, duty is cast on the Court to exercise its discretion in awarding amount for support and maintenance during the ligation proceedings, so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse, who has filed proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act, 1955. The very objective of interim maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage. The Court, while considering the merits of an application for grant of an interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, has to necessarily arrive at prima facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimant. The determination cannot be made with exactitude as it is essentially interim in nature. The Court is called upon to make a summary consideration of amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in accordance with the financial resources of the parties."
(14) It is relevant to add here that the right to claim maintenance and expense during pendency of proceedings under the Act, 1955, is a special right bestowed on the disadvantageous spouse, irrespective of the result of the main relief under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. Therefore, in the present case, allowing the claim of the respondent no.1/wife for interim maintenance and litigation expenses by means of the impugned order by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, cannot be faulted with as the same is legally sustainable and is not liable to be interfered with.
(15) For all the aforesaid reasons, the instant First Appeal fails and as such is hereby dismissed.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
Ajit/-