Disposed¶11

Saksham Agarwal v. Anchal

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2020FAPL/43/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; quantum challenge — Rs. 10,000/- per month plus Rs. 25,000/- costs held sustainable where wife has no livelihood and husband earns Rs. 25,000/- per month; parallel maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; Family Court Muzaffarnagar; direction to decide Misc. Case No. 48 of 2019 within six months; first appeal disposed of on 17.1.2020.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order; appeal disposed of subject to the direction that the Family Court decide Misc. Case No. 48 of 2019 within six months from the date of filing of application-4(kha). ¶11

Saksham Agarwal Vs Anchal — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 25,000/- costs awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is excessive having regard to the appellant's income and his obligation to maintain his sister, and is therefore liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The impugned order awarding interim maintenance and costs under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is based upon relevant considerations supported by cogent reasons and merits no interference by this Court.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The court below made the award under Section 24 after concluding that the plaintiff-respondent has no source of livelihood and that the defendant-appellant earns Rs. 25,000/- per month; this Court found no ground to disturb that assessment.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar is directed to make every possible endeavour to decide Misc. Case No. 48 of 2019 (Smt. Anchal Vs. Saksham Agarwal) within six months from the date of filing of application-4(kha).ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

First Appeal against the order dated 14.11.2019 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, allowing in part the wife's application-4(kha) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directing the husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of proceedings. The Court noted the findings that the wife had no source of livelihood and the husband earned Rs. 25,000/- per month, held the order to be based on relevant considerations supported by cogent reasons, and declined interference; the contention founded on the wife's parallel claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in which no interim maintenance had been awarded) resulted in no reduction. The Family Court was directed to decide Misc. Case No. 48 of 2019 (Smt. Anchal Vs. Saksham Agarwal) within six months from the date of filing of application-4(kha). Appeal disposed of (Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana and Shamim Ahmed, JJ.; order dated 17.1.2020).

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 43 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Saksham Agarwal Respondent :- Anchal Counsel for Appellant :- Prateek Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order.

¶6

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar by which the application-4 (kha) moved by the plaintiffrespondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed in part and the defendant-appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 25,000/towards cost of proceedings to the plaintiff-respondent.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded as interim maintenance considering the income of the defendantappellant, is highly excessive and on the higher side. It is further contended that the plaintiff-respondent has filed two applications for grant of maintenance, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and on that count she is not entitled to any interim maintenance. However, this is an admitted fact that under the aforesaid proceedings, no amount has been awarded to the plaintiff-respondent towards interim maintenance. He lastly submitted that considering the fact that the defendant-appellant has to maintain his sister also who is living with him, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the other material brought on record, we find that the court below after coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent has no source of livelihood and her husbanddefendant-appellant was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, has awarded the aforesaid sums to the plaintiff-respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶9

The impugned order is based upon relevant considerations supported by cogent reasons merits no interference by this Court.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar is directed to make every possible endeavour to decide the Misc. Case No. 48 of 2019 (Smt. Anchal Vs. Saksham Agarwal) within a period of six months from the date of filing of application-4(kha).

¶11

Subject to the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.1.2020 SA

Saksham Agarwal v. Anchal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saksham Agarwal v. Anchal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sri Ram Narain Agarwal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nirmla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Apar Mukhya Adhikari , Akhileshwar Mall Vs Income Tax Officer

Ganga Vs Smt. Basanti Devi Jatav Chairman Nagar Panchayat and Anr.

Umesh Kumar Patel Vs Smt. Rani