This second appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act challenged an order granting lump-sum interim maintenance and conveyance allowance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court held the quantum was not excessive and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; interim maintenance order modified affirmatively as no higher relief granted.
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. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 461 of 2019
Appellant :- Vivek Sharma Respondent :- Sheetal Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- Garun Pal Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act has been filed assailing the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad on application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the ' Act, 1955 ') granting one time interim maintenance of Rs.7000/-, lump sum litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- total amount Rs.12,000/- and further Rs.1,000/- on each date fixed before the Court below.
The appellant was married to the opposite party on 18.01.2011 according to Hindu rites and custom. Matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, as such the respondent started living with her parents. Matrimonial petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was filed before the Family Court, Ghaziabad. During the pendency of the said petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was filed by the opposite party for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It was stated in the application that the appellant was employed and was getting a salary of Rs.70,000/per month. Further, it was averred that he was earning about Rs.30,000/- from tutions. Maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.8,000/- was claimed by the opposite party as well as Advocate fee of Rs. 30,000/- and conveyance allowance of Rs.2000/- for attending every date.
The said application was contested by the appellant who filed his objection and stated that the opposite party was a teacher in a private school and was getting salary of Rs.30,000/-. It was further averred that the appellant was employed in a private company and was getting a take away salary of Rs.9,900/- after deduction of taxes.
The Court below, after consideration of application and objection of the parties, granted one time maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.7000/- and lump sum litigation expenses of Rs.5000/total amount of Rs.12,000/- and further granted Rs.1,000/- as conveyance allowance for attending the date before the court below.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the present appeal.
The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is in regard to the quantum of amount. He has also submitted that the appellant was initially getting a salary of Rs.9,900/- per month, as such he would not be able to pay the amount so granted by the court below.
From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the court below has only granted lump sum interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- and no amount has been granted per month to the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount so granted by the Court below is not on the higher side and requires no interference.
The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 VR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance amount granted by the lower court requires interference in the second appeal under Section 19 Family Court Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vivek Sharma
Sheetal Sharma
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
