Dismissed

Mohit Verma v. Suman Verma

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019FAPL/761/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Family Court dismissed an appeal against an order granting the respondent interim maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court held that the lower court acted correctly by disbelieving the appellant's inflated expense claims given his admitted salary of Rs. 37,683/- and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month granted to respondent; appeal dismissed with no interference in the lower court order.

Mohit Verma Vs Suman Verma — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 761 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Mohit Verma Respondent :- Suman Verma Counsel for Appellant :- Anwar Hussain

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been filed assailing the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad on an application under Section 24 of the Act in Matrimonial Petition No.110 of 2017, Mohit Verma vs. Smt. Suman Verma, wherein the Court below had granted interim maintenance of Rs.17,000/- per month, Rs.1000/- as counsel fee and Rs.100/- as conveyance charge for each date fixed in the court below.

¶6

The appellant/petitioner was married to respondent/opposite party on 29.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. It has been stated that sole respondent was living separately from the appellant since 20.1.2016 and there was no chance of reconciliation between them. The appellant, on 28.2.2017 moved a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad. During pendency of the said case respondentopposite party moved an application under Section 24 for interim mantenance claiming that appellant was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month and as such, she was entitled for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. Litigation expenses were also claimed in the said application.

¶7

The appellant contested the said application filed under Section 24 of the Act by filing objection and in paragraph 9 of the objection it was stated that he has to travel 30 Kms. daily on motorcycle to reach the College where he teaches and his total monthly expenses he claimed was Rs.16,472/-. It was further averred that he is also maintaining his parents and was incurring expenses on their medical bills. In paragraph 11 of the reply it was stated that appellant was getting a salary of Rs.37,683/- per month.

¶8

The court below on 19.9.2019, after considering the application and objection of the parties, held that it is an admitted case of appellant that he is getting monthly salary of Rs.37,683/- while he claimed that his personal expenses as well as the expenses incurred by him for upkeep of his parents, together come to

¶9

Rs.37,972/-, which was more than what he was earning and proceeded to disbelieve his version and directed the appellant to pay Rs.17,000/- per month as an interim maintenance from the date of order along with Rs.1000/- as counsel fee and Rs.100/for each date fixed.

¶10

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

¶11

From perusal of the objection filed by appellant, it transpires that it is an admitted case that appellant is getting a salary of Rs.37,683/- while he claimed his personal expenses were Rs.16,472/-. The appellant failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the treatment of his father at Delhi. Further, it has been stated that his parents were not living with his elder brother. Except the said fact, no attempt was made to establish that appellant-petitioner was bearing the entire expenditure for treatment of his parents, who are alleged to be living at Delhi.

¶12

We are of the considered view that since the appellant is getting a salary of more than Rs.37,000/-, the court below did not commit any illegality in granting interim maintenance at the rate mentioned herein above. Looking to the status of the parties, the order dated 19.9.2019 needs no interference.

¶13

The appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 AKJ

Mohit Verma v. Suman Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Verma v. Suman Verma

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

Akshay Kumar Yadav Vs Principal Judge Family Court and Another

Smt. Kavita Devi Vs Satendra

Awadh Kishore Singh Vs Smt. Urmila Singh and Others

Shiv Dayal Vs Union of India and Others