Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narpat Singh vs Neelam Gehlot on 7 December, 2020
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1452/2020
Narpat Singh S/o Late Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 44 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Near Hanumanji Ki Sal, Juni Bagar Chowk, Killa Road,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
Neelam Gehlot W/o Shri Narpat Singh, B/c Mali, R/o Today At
Present Gehloto Ka Bass Inside Mahamandir Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moola Ram Choudhary for Mr.
M.K.Trivedi through VC
For Respondent(s) : -------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment 07/12/2020
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 27.2.2020 passed by the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.59/18 (422/15), 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. The appellant has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, and litigation expenses Rs.5000/- in lump sum.
2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of (Downloaded on 09/12/2020 at 08:41:08 PM) (2 of 4) [CMA-1452/2020] Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as Teacher in Government School. As per the averments made in the application, in the year 2016, the appellant was drawing salary a sum of Rs. 34,640/- per month.
3. The Family Court determined the amount of maintenance payable to the respondent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and directed the appellant to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 5.12.16.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the application filed, the respondent had not prayed for award of maintenance from the date of application and thus, the Family Court has seriously erred in awarding maintenance from the date of application. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent was already being paid maintenance a sum of Rs. 8000/- determined by the Court under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("Act of 2005"), and therefore, there was no occasion for the Family Court to direct the payment of maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
6. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support 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 (Downloaded on 09/12/2020 at 08:41:08 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-1452/2020] income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse.
7. Admittedly, the application seeking maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 was filed by the respondent on 5.12.16. By virtue of proviso to Section 24, the application preferred, as far as possible, is expected to be decided within a period of 60 days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. Merely because, the application preferred by the respondent could not be decided for years together, she cannot be denied maintenance otherwise payable during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Family Court directing payment of maintenance from the date of filing of the application cannot be faulted with.
8. It is noticed that while awarding the maintenance in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 as aforesaid, the Family Court has specifically ordered that amount of maintenance, if any, being paid to the respondent in any other proceeding, shall be adjusted against the amount payable in terms of the order under appeal. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant with reference to the award of maintenance under the provisions of the Act of 2005, is also devoid of any merit.
9. No other point has been raised by the appellant.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present appeal shall not preclude the respondent from filing the appeal, if she is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance determined by the Family Court or for making an application before the Family Court for varying the (Downloaded on 09/12/2020 at 08:41:08 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-1452/2020] amount of maintenance determined as aforesaid on the basis of the income of the appellant in the year 2016.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
1-RP/-
(Downloaded on 09/12/2020 at 08:41:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)