Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Smt. Saroj Sharma W/O Shri Arvind Sharma ... vs Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nand ... on 15 May, 2019

Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1632/2019

Smt. Saroj Sharma W/o Shri Arvind Sharma D/o Shri Chhitar Mal
Jee Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o
Bagichi Ki Dhani, Sirsi, Post Lunwa, Tehsil- Nawan, District-
Nagour (Raj.).
                                                      ----Appellant/Applicant
                                  Versus
Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nand Kishore Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Plot No. 753, Acharya Ka
Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur Presently Residing At Plot No.
39, Radhey Krishan Colony, Govindpura & Niwaru Link Road,
Niwaru, Jhotwara, Tehsil Jaipur District Jaipur.
                                           ----Respondent/Non-Applicant


For Appellant(s)         :    Shri Kamal Kant Sharma




         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                   Order

15/05/2019

BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE DHADDHA,J.)

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by learned Family Court No.3, Jaipur in Matrimonial Application No.58/2018, Smt. Saroj Sharma v/s Arvind Kumar Sharma by which the learned Family Judge allowed the application and granted interim relief for litigation pendente lite & expenses for proceedings Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from the date of order i.e. 22.2.2019, Rs.3,100/- as a (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 01:19:51 AM) (2 of 3) [CMA-1632/2019] lump sum amount for legal advice and Rs.300/- for each date of proceedings.

Brief facts of the present appeal are that marriage of applicant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized as per Hindu rites. After marriage, respondent-husband, his parents and relatives started to harass the applicant-wife for dowry demand and the applicant-wife was forced to leave matrimonial home. The applicant-wife lodged an FIR No.41/2018 at Police Station Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur for offence u/s 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the respondent-husband for offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC and the trial is still pending. The respondent-husband had filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") to get rescued from criminal offences. The applicant-wife filed a petition u/s 13A of the Act to seek divorce from the respondent-husband. Applicant-wife had also filed application u/s 24 of the Act for seeking maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the applicant wife submits that the order of the learned Family Court was contrary to the provisions of law and the facts on record. He also submits that the applicant- wife does not have any source of income. She is solely dependent on her parents. Learned counsel submits that the respondent husband is earning Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month from private service, so, he did not submit salary slip and the learned Family Court ignored these facts. Learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Family Court be modified and Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance be awarded. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 01:19:51 AM)

(3 of 3) [CMA-1632/2019] We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-wife and closely perused all the material available on record.

Applicant-wife failed to produce any strong evidence that respondent-husband is earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent-husband is studying in B.Ed. and preparing for competition. Learned Family court observed that it is moral and legal duty of husband to maintain his wife. His liability would not be absolved that he had not sufficient means of income. So, the learned Family Court awarded Rs.3,000/- as a maintenance and that order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed so is the stay application.

                                    (N.S. DHADDHA),J                                        (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

                                   RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M64




                                                         (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 01:19:51 AM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)