This appeal was filed against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the award was reasonable and justified based on the husband's income and the wife's unemployment.
The appeal was dismissed with no separate specific relief mentioned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 218 of 2019
Appellant :- Pankaj Sharma Respondent :- Aradhana Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Mishra
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar in Matrimonial Misc. Case No. 122 of 2017 (Smt. Aradhna Sharma Versus Pankaj) wherein Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite, Rs.15,000/- lump sum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/- for attending the Court on each date of hearing, has been awarded in favour of the respondent.
Perusal of the record shows a divorce suit was filed by the appellant (husband) against the respondent (wife) and during the pendency of the said suit, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. In the said application, it has been alleged by the respondent (wife) that the appellant is an educated person and is employed in Krishi Beej Vikas Nigam, Aligarh getting Rs.30,000/- as salary. Apart from that, he is also getting interest of Rs.10,000/- under Monthly Income Plan of Postal Department and also has a deposit of Rs.50,000/- in his bank account. It has been further alleged that she is unemployed and is wholly dependent upon her parents.
In reply, the appellant had filed his objection stating that earlier he was working in Krishi Beej Vikas Nigam on daily wages but due to the litigation, he ceased to be in the employment and presently he is unemployed. Half of the interest income amount is being spent for his living and litigation and remaining amount is being paid to his mother, as such, he is not in a position to maintain his wife. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below awarded Rs.5000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite, Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum for litigation expenses and Rs.300/- for attending the Court on each date in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the objections taken before the Court below in reply to the application filed under Section 24 of the Act by the respondent. He further submitted that the appellant is unemployed and does not have any source of income to pay the amount as awarded by the Court below.
Perusal of the record shows that the appellant is a Law Graduate and was employed in Krishi Beej Vikas Nigam and is also earning interest under Monthly Income Plan of Postal Department. According to the appellant, the respondent has sufficient source of income as she is teaching in a School and is also doing private tuition. The Court below has recorded a categorical finding that there is nothing on record to establish that
the respondent is having any source of income either from School or private tuition. Merely because, she is an educated lady, she can not be deprived from seeking maintenance in the absence of any income.
The amount awarded by the Court below can not said to be on higher side keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index. The Court below has placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chander Prakash Bodhraj Versus Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 wherein it has been held as follows:
"An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he can not be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while awarding the maintenance. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned order and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the court below which may warrant any interference.
With the above observations, this appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2019 Arun
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the wife.
Whether the appellant's alleged unemployment and lack of income justify dismissal of the appeal against the maintenance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chander Prakash Bodhraj Versus Shila Rani Chander PrakashRelied on¶12
Chander Prakash Bodhraj Versus Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pankaj Sharma
Aradhana Sharma
Shashi Kant Gupta
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
