Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prakash Chand Soni vs Smt Savitri Swarnkar on 31 January, 2014
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.5310/2011 (Prakash Chand Soni Vs. Smt. Savatri Suwarankar) Date of Order : 31.01.2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Anil Mehta, for the appellant-husband. BY THE COURT
By the impugned order dated 22.03.2011, on the respondent-wife's (hereinafter 'the respondent) application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955'), the District Judge, Jhalawar has directed payment of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent-wife. Hence, this civil misc. appeal by the appellant-husband (hereinafter 'the appellant').
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the net income of the appellant is Rs.13,034/- p.m. of which subsequent to the deduction of installment on account of repayment of the loan taken from the Bank, salary in hand is Rs.6,234/-. It is submitted that the respondent herself earned Rs.10,000/- p.m. and therefore the direction to pay Rs.15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent by the appellant is excessive and wholly arbitrary.
Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 22.03.2011, passed by the lower court.
Section 24 of the Act of 1955 empowers the jurisdictional court to direct payment of maintenance pendente lite as also expenses for proceedings before the court to either of the spouse before it in a matrimonial dispute. The court is to determine as to whether the spouse claiming maintenance has income sufficient for his or her support and can thereupon issue direction for maintenance on a monthly basis having regard to the income of the parties before the court. A reading of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 indicates that the direction for payment of maintenance pendente lite is to be issued in the courts' discretion, no doubt judicious, taking into consideration the overall facts of the case. In the instant case, the learned court below has noted that the appellant was a headmaster of a government school with a gross income of Rs.36,828/-. The respondent was residing with two minor children both sons aged about 15 and 11 years respectively, who required education as per the status of the parties to the matrimonial dispute. Noting the decision in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soni Vs. Smt. Ranjita Soni [2011 (1) CDR 540 (Raj.)] that the powers under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 also extend to providing for the up keep of the minor children of the estranged couple, the learned court below negated the objection of the appellant (and in my considered view rightly so) that in determining the maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, the requirement of minor children staying with the respondent could not be taken into consideration. The court below has also rightly held that the loan availed by the appellant for construction of property and obligations as to its repayment could not be detrimental of the respondent or override her statutory right inasmuch as the escalation of the value of the property would be for the benefit of the appellant himself.
It has been the consistent view of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where discretionary orders of the court below are passed on objective consideration of material before them and are supported by cogent reason, there should be no interference by the appellate court solely by virtue of it being superior court. I find no error, perversity or misdirection in the order dated 22.03.2011, passed by the court below. Thus no interference is called for in this appeal.
Consequently, this civil misc. appeal is dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A