Dismissed

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar v. Manorma Devi

Allahabad HC27 May 2019FAPL/443/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim maintenance order. It held that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act authorizes maintenance and litigation expenses in any proceedings under the Act, including restitution of conjugal rights filed by the spouse.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar Vs Manorma Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 443 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar Respondent :- Manorma Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Ratan Bhushan

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court has been filed assailing the order dated 2.4.2019 passed by Additional Principal Family Court, Aligarh in application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Marriage Petition No.1244 of 2017 filed under Section 9 by the respondent.

¶6

Case in nutshell is that appellant was married to opposite party. From the aforesaid wedlock, two minor children namely daughter Charu and Dimpal were born. It appears that some matrimonial dispute arose between them, and, according to the opposite party, the appellant constantly made demand for dowry, and physically and mentally harrassed her, and it was on 21.8.2017 that opposite party along with her two daughters were thrown out of the matrimonial house by the appellant.

¶7

An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the appellant which was registered as matrimonial Case No.1244 of 2017. During the pendency of the said case, opposite party filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance on the ground that she had no means to live and claimed interim maintenance as well as lumpsum litigation expenses. It was also averred

¶8

that the appellant was earning about Rs.25,000/- per month. The said application was contested by the appellant who filed his objection denying the said fact. The Court below by order dated 2.4.2019 granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent, Rs.1000/- to daughter Charu and Rs.1000/- to the second daughter Dimpal and, further granted one time litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

¶9

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

¶10

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Court below should not have granted interim maintenance and litigation expenses as the appellant has already instituted case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and, as such the order passed on 2.4.2019 is illegal and arbitrary. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act clearly spells out that maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings can be granted by the Court, in any proceedings which is initiated under the Hindu Marriage Act. Proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 9 for restitution of the conjugal rights is also proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and there is no bar for the Court in granting maintenance pendente lite to either of the spouse or litigation expenses.

¶11

In view of the above, we find no ground for interference, the first appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 S. Singh

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar v. Manorma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar v. Manorma Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Shrikant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rohit Pant Vs Smt. Ritambhara @ Shikha

Smt. Jimmy Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Singh and 3 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others