Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shashikant Jha vs Smt. Rashmi on 28 March, 2017
1
W. P. No.16727/2015
28.03.2017
Shri S.R.Tamrakar,learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri B.K.Uphadhyay, learned counsel for
the respondents.
With consent of the parties the matter is finally heard.
In a proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act of 1955) at the instance of the petitioner on an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 filed by respondent before the Trial Court for grant of maintenance pendente lite and legal expenses, the trial Court vide order dated 22.8.2015 awarded Rs.6000/- per month towards maintenance w.e.f from August 2015, Rs.1500/- towards legal expenses for each date, Rs.250/- towards expenses for assistance and Rs.3500 towards counsel fee. Petitioner is aggrieved by said order.
It is the contention of the petitioner that having married on 14.2.2010 the respondent without any rhyme and reason had refused to stay with him despite the decree of restitution of conjugal right passed in favour of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act of 1955. It is urged that as the respondent had not obeyed the said decree the petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for divorce has been filed. It is 2 further contended that the petitioner is not in a regular job but is only a Guest Lecturer earning Rs.7000/- per month. It is further contended that these facts having been glossed over by the Trial Court deserves to be taken into consideration and the application preferred by respondent for maintenance pendente lite and for legal expenses deserves to be dismissed.
Taking into consideration the contention that the petitioner earns only Rs.7000/- an order was passed on 14.2.2017 whereby the State Government through Government Advocate was called upon to disclose actual remuneration received by the petitioner. The information has been tendered by the State vide I.A.No.3400/2017 wherein the In-Charge, Principal Government Narmada Post Graduate College Hoshangabad has filed an affidavit stating therein that for the Session 2015-16 the petitioner was appointed as Guest Faculty for teaching Computer Application and was getting remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month and for Session 2016-17 the petitioner has been appointed as Guest Faculty for teaching Computer Application for remuneration of Rs.17,000/- per month.
It is further stated that lesser remuneration of respective month is because of
petitioner's remaining absent for certain period which is deducted from his monthly remuneration.
Thus it is clear, that the petitioner is not earning Rs.17,000/- per month as stated in the petition 3 but was getting a remuneration of Rs.15,000/- per month for an Academic Session 2015-2016 and Rs.17,000/- for Academic Session 2016-2017.
Further evident it is from the order that the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- towards legal expenses which is one time payment, Rs.6000/- per month + Rs.1500/- on each of the date fixed in the Court. Thus, the petitioner will have to bare expenses to Rs.7500/- + Rs.250/- (for assistance) per month.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a Guest Faculty with no job guarantee, this Court is of the opinion that expenses towards maintenance pendente lite deserves to be reduced to Rs.4500/- per month. As regard to legal expenses this Court does not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the same is on the higher side.
In view whereof, the impugned order is modify to the extent, that the respondents would be entitled for maintenance pendente lite for Rs.4500/- per month + Rs.1500/- + Rs.250/- for the assistance on each date fixed in the Court and Rs.3500/- to meet out the legal expenses as one time payment.
The petition is partly allowed to the extent above. There shall be no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE das