Dismissed

Santosh Kumar v. Kanchan

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019FAPLD/81/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed by a husband challenging the quantum of interim maintenance and compensation awarded to his wife. The court rejected the argument that compensation under the Domestic Violence Act could be adjusted towards maintenance and dismissed the appeal, finding the award was not excessive. The period limitation for filing the appeal was also condoned.

What did the court decide?

The condonation of delay was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Santosh Kumar Vs Kanchan — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 81 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Kanchan Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶8

Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.

¶9

The application is accordingly allowed.

¶10

Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu

¶12

(D.Cond.Appl.1 of 2019)

¶13

Court No. - 34

¶14

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 81 of 2019

¶15

Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Kanchan Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey

¶16

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶17

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for appellant.

¶18

This appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1984”) has arisen from judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by Smt. Kiran Bala, Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 78 of 2018 (Smt. Kanchan Vs. Santosh Kumar) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) filed by respondent-wife allowing the same partly and directing respondent-appellant to pay Rs. 20,000/- as one time maintenance, Rs. 3000/- as counsel fee and Rs. 200/- towards expenses for attending the Court on each date besides above interim maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- for the purpose of maintaining wife as well as daughter.

¶19

Record shows that as per the pay slip of November, 2014 of respondent-appellant, his net salary was Rs. 1,01,198/-.

¶20

However, it is submitted that under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”) appellant has already been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and that amount ought to have been adjusted by Court below but we find that the amount of compensation was not adjustable in the matter of determination of interim maintenance under Section 24 of Act, 1955. The purpose and objective of award of compensation under the provisions of Act, 2005 is different. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for appellant has not been able to show any provision or otherwise law wherein the amount of compensation allowed under Act, 2005 is liable to be adjusted when interim maintenance amount is

¶21

determined by Family Court.

¶22

So far as quantum of amount is concerned, we do not find that the same is excessive or otherwise illegal, particularly considering the fact that in the pay slip of November, 2014, appellant's net salary was Rs. 1,01,198/-.

¶23

Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Santosh Kumar v. Kanchan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. Kanchan

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

Brij Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Creative Media through Its Proprietor Smt. Pratibha Jha Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Saiyad Ayaz Fakhri Vs Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and 2 Others

Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hirendra Pratap Mall Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeshwai Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others