Dismissed

Santosh Kumar v. Smt. Deepa

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019FAPL/549/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged the award of lump sum litigation expenses in a Section 24 maintenance application. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the lower court's decision, dismissing the appeal but directing expedited disposal of the underlying restitution of conjugal rights petition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; lower court directed to dispose pending matrimonial petition within six months.

Santosh Kumar Vs Smt. Deepa — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 549 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Smt. Deepa Counsel for Appellant :- Shamimul Hasnain,Ajay Kumar,Indu Bhushan Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Arpan Srivastava,Neelabh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Present appeal has been filed against the order of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad dated 29.7.2019 on an application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the "Act") awarding lump sum litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to defendant-respondent wife.

¶7

Facts in brief are, that appellant was married to defendantrespondent on 10.2.2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. From the aforesaid wedlock two children were born. However, due to matrimonial dispute, which arose between the parties, respondent wife started living at her maternal house.

¶8

Plaintiff-appellant filed Matrimonial Petition under Section 9 of the Act on 18.5.2015 for restitution of conjugal right. In the aforesaid case, an application under Section 24 of the Act was moved by defendant-respondent claiming Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance and lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses, on the ground, that plaintiff-appellant was employed in a government job and was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month.

¶9

Plaintiff-appellant contested the said application by filing objection, in which it was stated that defendant-respondent was also employed in government job and was getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and plaintiff-appellant was only getting salary of Rs.21,877/- per month.

¶10

Court below, after considering the application and objection filed by the parties on 29.7.2017, partly allowed the application under Section 24 of the Act and granted lump sum litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- only.

¶11

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

From pleadings of the parties and perusal of order impugned, undisputed fact which emerges is, that both parties are employed in the government job and that both the children are

¶13

living with respondent.

¶14

In view of the above, we find no legal infirmity in order passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad granting Rs.10,000/- as lump sum litigation expenses keeping in mind cost of litigation in the present time. However, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad shall make every endeavour to decide Matrimonial Petition under Section 9 of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in view of Section 21-B of the Act.

¶15

Appeal stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 AKJ

Santosh Kumar v. Smt. Deepa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. Smt. Deepa

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

State of U.P.and Others Vs Bajranj Singh Sengar

Prashant Singh Pramukh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mohit Tyagi and Another Vs Smt. Ranjana Krishna and Another

Vrindavan Lawn Limited Laibility Partnership Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Mohit Tyagi and Another Vs St. Ranjana Krishna and Another