Jharkhand High Court
John Prakash Kujur Son Of Late Shiv ... vs Rekha Lakra W/O John Prakash Kujur D/O ... on 12 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 530
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2917 of 2017
John Prakash Kujur son of Late Shiv Shankar Kujur, resident of village-
Saurichakla, P.O.-Surni, P.S.-Meharma, District-Godda.
...... Petitioner
Versus
Rekha Lakra W/o John Prakash Kujur D/o Ramchandra Lakra, resident of
C/o Ramchandra Lakra, village-Saurichakla, P.O.-Surni, P.S.-Meharma,
District-Godda.
...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Abha Verma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
----------------------------
06/Dated 12th March, 2019
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein order dated 27.04.2017 passed in Matrimonial Suit No.43 of 2016 by which while entertaining the petition filed under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the order has been passed upon the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife (respondent herein) from the Month of June, 2016 but the amount calculated from June, 2016 to April, 2017 will be provided to the petitioner in 10 equal installment and after the Month of April, 2017 the petitioner will pay the maintenance in a current manner Rs.7,000/- per month to be paid by 10th of the subsequent Month.
2. The ground of challenge has been taken by the petitioner is that the said amount is in higher side and further the petitioner is having children with the lady to whom he is in live-in-relationship.
3. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that the amount is not in higher side rather the amount will be said to be in lower side because the petitioner is a teacher in a Government school and now and on the date when the order was passed by the trial Court, was working as in-charge in the capacity of 2 head-master having salary of about Rs.50,000/- per month and also income of Rs.1,00,000/- from agriculture per year.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further has submitted that the quantum of salary or the income assessed from the agriculture, no evidence to that effect has been led, therefore, the determination of quantum by the Trial Court is not proper.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the factual aspect as also the impugned order, it is evident that a matrimonial suit in between the petitioner and the respondent-wife has been filed who by caste are Christian and therefore, the Divorce Act, 1869 is applicable.
6. During pendency of the divorce proceeding, a petition under Section 36 of the Act, 1869 has been filed by the respondent-wife for pendente lite alimony, the Trial Court after considering the aforesaid application and after hearing the petitioner has passed an order for making payment in favour of the respondent-wife by the petitioner of an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month.
7. The ground which has been urged by the petitioner that the determination of quantum of the amount is in higher side but the same is not fit to be accepted for the reason that the petitioner is a Government teacher having pay scale of about Rs.50,000/- and therefore in order to maintain wife on the basis of the inflation and price index, the Court has awarded Rs.7,000/- per month.
The Court has also considered the landed property from which the income is being accruing from the cultivation over the said land.
8. The question herein is that the petitioner is working as a teacher having reputation in the society and the respondent is the legally wedded wife and as such she is having all rights to be maintained as per the standard of her husband, therefore, the amount of Rs.7,000/- as has been directed to be paid in favour of the respondent considering the nature of duty which pertains to the Government 3 servant by way of a teacher working in the Government school as also having landed property which is being used as has been found in the impugned order for agricultural purposes.
9. In view thereof, the amount as has been assessed by the trial Court by way of pendente lite alimony cannot be said to be unjustified, accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, hence the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
10. It is evident from the order dated 07.02.2018 passed in this case that the petitioner in order to comply with the order dated 15.01.2018 has submitted a demand draft drawn in the name of the respondent for Rs.14,000/-, the same has been directed to be disbursed in favour of the respondent-wife.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the validity of the demand draft is only for the period of 06 months, therefore, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner to prepare a fresh demand draft, if its validity has already expired.
Upon this, learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to handover the demand draft made in favour of the respondent of Rs.14,000/- on proper identification.
12. Needless to say, if the validity of the demand draft has already lost its force, the respondent will return it back to the petitioner through the trial Court and in that situation, the petitioner will prepare a fresh demand draft of the said amount within a period of 02 weeks from the date of its receipt through the trial Court.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh