Dismissed

Akshay Kumar Yadav v. Principal Judge Family Court and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2019FAPL/748/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allowing Rs.7,000 per month to wife and daughter. Court held order was based on relevant considerations and appellant failed to prove infirmity.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 remains intact.

Akshay Kumar Yadav Vs Principal Judge Family Court… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 748 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Akshay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Principal Judge Family Court And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Diwakar Tiwari

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 18.10.2019.

¶6

This appeal has been preferred by appellant, Akshay Kumar Yadav, who is the husband of respondent no. 2, Smt. Pooja Yadav, against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Suit No. 68 of 2019 (Smt. Pooja vs. Aman @ Akshay Kumar Yadav), by which the application 4Ga moved by respondent no. 2 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed in part and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent no. 2 and her minor daughter, together with an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.500/- towards conveyance expenses.

¶7

Having perused the impugned order and the material on record, we find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court after being satisfied that the plaintiffappellant was employed as accountant in the U.H.G., Noida and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the defendant-respondent and her minor daughter together with litigation expenses and conveyance charges amounting to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.500/-, respectively. A specific plea taken by plaintiff-appellant before the learned Family Court Judge that the defendant-respondent was an educated lady who was employed in Global Solution India Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.25,421/per month, was repelled by him with the finding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to bring on record any certificate pertaining to the income of the defendant-respondent.

¶8

The impugned order in our opinion is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the same suffers from any illegality or legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court.

¶9

This appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.11.2019 V.S.Singh

Akshay Kumar Yadav v. Principal Judge Family Court and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Kumar Yadav v. Principal Judge Family Court and Another

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

Nishant Dhussa Vs Principal Judge Family Court and Another

Ratan Pal Singh A.S.I. and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Kavita Devi Vs Satendra