Allahabad High Court
Ram Awadh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Home & 4 ... on 16 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2315, (2019) 8 ADJ 524 (ALL)
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 3 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 129 of 2017 Appellant :- Ram Awadh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Home & 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Saroj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(As per Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.) 1- List revised.
2- Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant. The Standing Counsel is present for the State. It appears from the office report that notice upon respondent nos. 2 to 5 is sufficient, but no one present on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 5.
3- Facts in brief of the present case, as per record, are that marriage between appellant and respondent no. 2 i.e. Mrs. Kiran Devi was solemnized on 30.05.1996 and out of the wedlock of appellant and respondent no. 2 , three sons were born namely Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Shobit Kumar and Mr. Sumit Kumar (respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively).
4- Matrimonial relation between the appellant and respondent no. 2 has become strained and on 28.02.2008 the respondent no. 2 went to her parent house and never came back at her matrimonial home.
5- Thereafter, on 18.09.2013 the appellant filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1955"), bearing Matrimonial Case No. 1239/2014 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao (Ram Awadh Yadav Versus Smt. Kiran Devi).
6- Thereafter, on 13.11.2013, the respondent no. 2 filed an application/case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., registered as Case No. 957 of 2014 and on 16.12.2014 the appellant filed objection against the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and no relief (interim maintenance)was granted to the respondent No. 2.
7- Thereafter, on 25.02.2015 the respondent no. 2 moved another application under Section 24 of Act of 1955 and on 02.12.2015 the appellant filed the objection against the application moved under Section 24 of the Act of 1955.
8- On 22.08.2017, the Principal Judge Family Court, Unnao, partly allowed the application moved under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955, whereby awarded two thousand towards legal fee and also awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the children as an interim maintenance.
9- Assailing the order dated 22.08.2017, under appeal the Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no relief was granted to the respondent no. 2 on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No. 957 of 2014 by the Family Court, Unnao and therefore on the application moved under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the order, under appeal, dated 22.08.2017 granting maintenance ought not to have been passed.
Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned order is totally illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside for the reasons that:-
(i) for the relief of maintenance two proceedings cannot be initiated and persuaded/preseed i.e. one under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and another under Section 24 of Act of 1955.
(ii) once the Court below decline to pass an order granting interim maintenance on the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no. 2 then in that event granting maintenance under Section 24 is unjustified and illegal.
10- We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
11- We find that only two points are to be considered i.e. (1) Whether on the basis of pleading and evidence, the lower court has rightly passed the order dated 22.08.2017, whereby application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, was partly allowed?
(2) Whether once the respondent no. 2 has moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance bearing Case No. 957 of 2014 before the Family Court, Unnao, then she can also move an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance/maintenance pendente lite?
12- So far as the first point is concerned, it appears from the order dated 22.08.2017 that on the basis of evidence, the lower court found and recorded finding(s) that appellant Ram Awadh is a driver and in addition to the said fact, appellant is a land owner of agricultural land from which he is getting income and he is also doing the business of selling milk and on the basis of the same, lower court has come to the conclusion that income of appellant is around 20,000/- per month and lower court has also given its finding that respondent no. 2 Mrs. Kiran Devi has no source of income for her livelihood and her three children.
13- Thus, in view of the above,we are of the view that the lower court has rightly passed the order dated 22.08.2017, whereby granted interim maintenance/maintenance pendente lite.
14- So far as the second point is concerned, it is evident from record that the respondent no. 2 firstly filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Unnao, but interim relief was not granted to her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and then she filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance, which was partly allowed.
15- In the above said admitted position the point no. (ii) has to be decided.
16- For the purposes of decision on point no. (ii), Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act are quoted below:-
"Section 125 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain.-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] Explanation.-For the purposes of this Chapter.-
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
[(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.] (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each month's allowance [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding , as the case may be] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation.-If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding , as the case may be] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
Section 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:
[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.] Section 26 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
26. Custody of children.-In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made:
[Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.]"
17- From the above quoted provisions itself, it is crystal clear that both the proceedings i.e. proceedings under Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Act of 1955 operates in the different sphere and they are independent to each other and the proceedings under both the Acts can be persuaded and court in both the proceedings can pass order granting maintenance. For fixing amount/quantum of maintenance under Section 24, the Court concerned can take note the amount, if any, awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
18- The issue/point under consideration is an important issue, as such we would like to add further, keeping in view the plight of wife and children in matrimonial cases.
19. A husband's obligation to maintain his wife arises on marriage. Such obligation towards his children arises on their birth. These obligations are imposed on him by operation of law. It is also a moral obligation imposed upon him. It is 'immoral' and 'illegal' to deny them maintenance. In our view, it is a sacred duty of an husband or father, as the case may be, towards his wife and children. This is the least the father of a girl expects from his son-in-law. Otherwise why should he marry a woman and leave her and her children in lurch in the street.
20. Besides the love and affection of their father, the children can also seek financial support from their putative father for their genuine and reasonable needs. It is too cruel on his part to deny them maintenance. There may be many disputes or differences between their parents but that cannot be a reason to refuse them maintenance and make them to suffer. In matrimonial disputes the innocent children are the worst sufferers.
21. In a matrimonial proceedings, the women and children are fighting the husband, father, as the case may be not on equal footing. Some gets financial support from their parents, brothers and sisters and also some work and earn. These are all exceptional cases. Many women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis. The husbands exploit their this pitiable plight.
22. In view of the mad rush in matrimonial Courts, it is very easy to go into these Courts, but very difficult to come out of these Courts within a short span of time. It is time consuming. The women and children financially suffer very much. During the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings without proper financial support their survival becomes very difficult. They also suffer mental agony, undergoes mental trauma. They suffer mentally, physically and also fiscally (financially).
23. The women and children are in a disadvantageous position, whereas it is not so in the case of husbands. Capitalising their this financial constraints, the husbands torture them by dragging on even these simple maintenance petitions for years together.
24. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Chapter IX, Sections 125 to 128 deals with providing of maintenance to wives, children and parents. The object of inserting such a provision in a Criminal statute is to give them immediate relief. And the Magistrates are expected to enquire and dispose of these petitions in a summary manner at the quickest possible time.
25. As per clause (b) of Explanation to Section 125(1), Cr.P.C., even a 'divorced woman', whether she has been divorced or has obtained divorce can also seek maintenance. Through an amendment made in 2001 provision has been made to provide them interim maintenance and also for litigation expenses.
26. In Metropolitan Cities and in Major Towns Family Courts have been constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Still there is no change in the substantive personal law of the spouses and the children. As per Sections 7, 10 of the said Act, the Family Courts can deal with the maintenance petitions under Section 125 Cr.P.C., also. And such maintenance orders could be enforced in the same manner the maintenance orders are being enforced in the Magistrates Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
27. Persons professing different religions are governed under the personal law applicable to them. Marital discordance and matters connected thereto are dealt with under these personal laws. When matrimonial strife arises, the spouses approaches Matrimonial Courts, seek matrimonial reliefs such as 'restitution of conjugal rights', 'judicial separation', 'dissolution of marriage/divorce', 'declaration of nullity of the marriage' or even 'a suit to declare the legal status or marital status of a man, woman, a child'. These matrimonial proceedings may be at the instance of either spouse.
28. The said proceedings are governed under the personal laws to which the parties are subjected to, such as Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936,Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, in view of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 'Sharia' of Islamic law, Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and for those who have no faith in any religion or rationalists the Special Marriages Act, 1954.
29. In the matrimonial proceedings instituted under the said personal laws, the wife and children can seek maintenance against the husband/father, as the case may be. It is to provide them financial support. It is for their survival, as long as the matrimonial proceedings are pending. Thus, they came to be called 'pendent lite maintenance'. It is also a 'temporary alimony' to the wife. They are in the nature of granting 'interim relief, 'interim measure', 'interim protection'.
30. The component of such maintenance includes a 'reasonable and a fair' amount for the woman to maintain herself 'according to the mode of life to which she is accustomed to', 'according to the status to which she is entitled to', 'according to the mode or life style to which her husband is accustomed to'. But, in any case, it cannot be for a luxurious mode of living or for 'extravagansa' and not beyond the means of the husband. In case of children, this component also includes their educational expenses. They can be granted litigation expenses and monetary relief to cover their to and fro expenses to attend the Court and return their homes.
31. Hindu wives can seek such pendent lite maintenance in a pending matrimonial proceedings underSection 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act. The children can seek such maintenance from their father under Section 26 of the Act. Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Section 39 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, Sections 36 and 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 also deals with grant of pendent lite maintenance. Though the position in Islamic Law is different, Islamic Law do have provision for the women and children.
32. In the Metropolitan Cities and in major Towns, the Family Courts deal with the pendent lite maintenance petitions. In places where no Family Court is constituted, the District Courts and the Sub Courts deal with such petitions filed under the personal laws to which the parties belongs. They are all Civil Courts. They deal with maintenance matters on the civil side. Apart from this, certain eligible persons can also seek maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 from the Civil Courts. The principles governing grant of maintenance under this Act is different from grant of pendent lite maintenance in matrimonial cases. But contents-wise there is no much difference.
33. The object of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriages Act in providing maintenance to a party in matrimonial proceedings is obviously to provide financial assistance to the spouse to maintain herself or himself during the pendency of the proceedings and also to have sufficient funds to carry on the litigation so that the spouse does not unduly suffer in the conduct of the case for want of funds.
34. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeks to provide financial support, wherewithal to the wife and Section 26 of the Act seeks to provide maintenance to the children to withstand the financial crisis arising out of the separation and also to face the matrimonial proceedings initiated by her husband.
35. However, that is not the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act operates in different sphere and they are independent of each other.
36. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., even a divorcee can claim maintenance from her ex-husband. But, under Section 24 of the Act, a divorcee cannot claim maintenance. However, after divorce, she can claim 'permanent alimony' from her former husband.
37. An order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will not take away the jurisdiction of the Matrimonial Courts/Civil Courts to grant pendent lite maintenance to the wife and children under Sections 24, 26of the Hindu Marriage Act. An order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C shall not bar the wife and the children to recourse to Sections 24, 26 of the said Act and seek maintenance in a pending matrimonial proceedings. They can seek such a relief in a matrimonial proceedings initiated either by the husband or by the wife herself.
38. The object behind Sections 24, 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act is survival of the wife and children as long as the matrimonial proceedings are pending. It also enures to the appeals, revisions and connected proceedings arising out of the matrimonial proceedings, either from the pendente lite maintenance proceedings or from the main matrimonial proceedings.
39. No law of limitation applies to these maintenance matters. A wife, who was financially sound, at the start of the matrimonial proceedings nor disliked to get any financial support from her husband, by quirk of events, subsequently may suffer financial crisis, may need financial support and in such an event, subsequently also she can seek pendente lite maintenance in the pending matrimonial proceedings from her husband.
40. The maintenance orders passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are enforced under Section 128 Cr.P.C. However, the maintenance orders passed by the Matrimonial Courts/Civil Courts under Sections 24,26 of the Hindu Marriage Act are enforced/executed as Civil Court decrees under Section 51 and Order XXI of the Civil procedure Code, 1908.
41. As per Section 127 Cr.P.C., enhancement of maintenance already granted by the Magistrate can be sought for before the Magistrate or before the Family Court, when the order has been passed by the Family Court. However, notwithstanding such a maintenance order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, a wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and her children under Section 26 of the Act can seek pendent lite maintenance in a pending matrimonial proceedings from the husband and the father, as the case may be.
42. But the said maintenance order passed under Sections 24, 26 of the said Act, will come to an end when the matrimonial proceedings comes to an end. However, it will not be so if the maintenance order were been passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It will long last as long as the persons for whom the maintenance order has been passed is alive or until it is cancelled under Section 127 Cr.P.C or in a manner known to law. Law of limitation does not apply to these maintenance matters. Because it gives a 'continuous cause of action'. Non maintaining of his wife and children by an husband is a 'continuous wrong'.
43. However, while fixing the quantum of maintenance under Sections 24, 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Civil Court can take into account the amount being paid to them in pursuance of an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In case, the woman is granted 'permanent alimony' it will have its repercussion in the maintenance order already passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C (See Section 127(2)Cr.P.C.).
44. In existence of a maintenance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Matrimonial Court cannot refuse to entertain the maintenance petition under Sections 24, 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the revision petitioner for pendente lite maintenance. The court concerned also cannot compel the woman and children to go to the said Magistrate and seek enhancement of their maintenance underSection 127 Cr.P.C.
45- The division Bench of this Court, on the similar issue, in the case of Rajendra Prasad Versus Meena and another reported in (2017) 6 AWC 5963, observed as under:
"A plain reading of the Act shows that intention of the legislature is that where in any proceedings it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, order the respondent to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceeding. These words make the intention of the legislature quite clear that expenses have to be allowed by the Court if the requirement as provided under Section 24 of Act are fulfilled for a period during the pendency of the suit or proceeding. It may be noted that the benefits granted under this Section are only temporary in nature and there are other provisions of law where a wife, who is not able to maintain herself, can claim maintenance/permanent alimony from the husband e.g. Section 25 of HMA or under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Section 24 talks about interim relief which can be granted during the pendency of proceedings inHindu Marriage Act. Once the case is over, Section 24 benefits will automatically stop. It is available only for Hindus. Section 125 CrPC is a permanent maintenance relief. Even though this section is provided in criminal procedure code, it has got civil nature but the proceedings are conducted similar to criminal case, i.e., a little bit quicker. The relief once provided in Section 125 is valid till the wife remarries. It is applicable to all religions.
While dealing with the question whether a pre-existing order for payment of maintenance under Sec.125 of CrPC is a bar for maintaining an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Courts are of the uniform view that it is not a bar and both the reliefs are independent of each other. It is well settled that a claim under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a relief of interim maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings. Initiation of a legal proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act is a condition precedent whereas the claim under Sec.125 CrPC is a social relief. The civil courts granting maintenance have to only take into consideration of the pre-existing order of such payment of maintenance by the criminal court.
It is thus clear that the right to claim maintenance or litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is not made available generally to the parties to a marriage but only when a proceeding between the spouses are pending under that Act, and in that respect, the right conferred under Section 24 of that Act, is in the nature of a special statutory right not in any manner outside the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The purpose behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is that parties to a matrimonial cause should not take undue and unfair advantage of a superior financial capacity to defeat the rightful claims of a weaker party and the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act serves a limited purpose, i.e., during the pendency of proceedings under that Act, to enable the weaker party to establish rights without being in any manner hindered by lack of financial support. If the special nature of the statutory right under that Act and its purpose are kept in mind, it is at once clear that the enforcement of that right cannot in any manner be hedged in by a consideration of proceedings otherwise initiated either under Section 125 CrPC or under the ordinary law.
The cause of action for filing a petition under section 24 of the Act would arise only when there is a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband or wife. Therefore, the primary requirement for claiming maintenance under section 24 of the Act is the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding. This provision was introduced with a laudable object of ensuring maintenance to a party in the proceeding so as to enable him or her to maintain themselves during the pendency of such proceedings. This provision also permits the Court to award reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting the matrimonial proceeding. There is no ceiling time prescribed for the purpose of granting maintenance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 24 of the Act seeks to maintain an equilibrium between the two parties to the litigation during the pendency of the proceeding as it makes provision for payment of maintenance for a party who is in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to contest the proceeding on account of poor economic condition. The remedy provided under section 125 of the CrPC is totally for a different purpose. This remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Family Court to award maintenance under section 24 of the Act. The scope of the proceeding under section 125 CrPC is very limited. It is purely a summary proceeding. Section 127 of the CrPC permits the Court to vary the order. Therefore, Section 125 CrPC operates in an entirely different sphere.
A spouse unable to maintain himself/herself is entitled to maintenance on the principle of equi-status and respect that the spouse would have enjoyed if he/she continued to live with other spouse. It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 24 are beneficent in nature and the power is exercised by the Court not only out of compassion but also by way of judicial duty so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse. .The Court while considering the merits of an application for grant of an interim maintenance under Section 24 has to necessarily arrive at prima-facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimant. The determination cannot be made with exactitude; it is essentially interim in nature. The Court is called upon to make a summary consideration of amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses in accordance with the financial resources of the parties. In the instant case, the wife has stated that the husband-appellant has deserted her in October, 2010 and since then he has not given a single penny towards maintenance. She has also brought on record the fact that the appellant is running a general store shop and is having agricultural income. The court below after considering the entire facts and the assertion of the appellant that his only source of income is by doing labour work, awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the first respondent [wife], which is perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case."
46- In view of the above point no. (ii) is decided against the appellant.
47- There is no illegality or infirmity in the order. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find a fit case for interference.
48- The Appeal is misconceived and hence dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Jyoti/-