Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshan Singh vs Renu on 6 August, 2019
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 979/2019
Roshan Singh S/o Shri Jay Singh Gehlot, Aged About 35 Years,
B/c Mali, R/o 65, Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of Mahila Police
Station, Pali, Tehsil And District Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
Renu W/o Shri Roshan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, D/o Shri
Shyam Singh, B/c Mali, R/o 65, Rajendra Nagar, In Front Of
Mahila Police Station, Pali, Presently Residing C/o Shyam Singh,
S/o Shri Gokulram Parihar (Ramsagar Wale), Gayatri Nagar, Mata
Ka Than, Main Punjla Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Mohammed Sahid Sheikh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order 06/08/2019
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 19.3.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.743/17, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month for herself and her sons.
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:02:37 AM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-979/2019]
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance to the respondent under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent is running grocery shop with her brother and is earning Rs.1,50,000/- to 2,00,000/- per month. The respondent is also running a factory of spices and thus, she having sufficient source to maintain herself, is not entitled for any amount towards maintenance.
3. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no sufficient means to maintain himself/herself or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse.
4. Though, the appellant has attempted to project that the respondent is earning Rs.1,50,000/- to 2,00,000/- per month from grocery shop but there was no material placed on record to substantiate the same. It has come on record that the appellant is working as commission agent and is earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month. That apart, the appellant is also earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month from the business of property dealing. Admittedly, the respondent has responsibility of upbringing two children. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interim maintenance payable to the respondent (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:02:37 AM) (3 of 3) [CMA-979/2019] determined by the Family Court as aforesaid, cannot be said to be excessive so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
5. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:02:37 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)