Appeal filed against interim maintenance order awarding Rs.8,000 monthly to respondent-wife. Court held order was supported by cogent reasons given appellant's assets and health, refused interference, but directed fast disposal of main suit within six months.
Intermediate order affirmed; fast disposal of main suit within six months directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 916 of 2019
Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- Arati Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Pradeep Kumar against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2019 passed by Ashok Kumar Singh-V, Judge Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit No.964 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. Smt. Arati) by which the Application 4(Ga) filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed in part. The appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, Rs.10,000 towards legal proceedings and Rs.300/- towards conveyance charges to the respondent.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is per se illegal as the Principal Judge Family Court while awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was a student and unemployed. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order, we do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned Principal Judge, Family Court after noticing the fact that it was admitted to the appellant that he owned a house in village Nithari which had six rooms out of which four rooms had been rented out and that he had a shop which was being managed by his brother and that the appellant was a young man with good health, came to the conclusion that he was liable to maintain his wife during the pendency of the litigation and accordingly awarded the aforesaid amount of maintenance to her.
The impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. Considering the high cost of living of these days, the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded as maintenance, cannot be termed as being on the higher side.
We therefore, refuse to interfere with the impugned order.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the Principal Judge Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar to make every possible endeavour to decide the Original Suit No.964 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. Arati), as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.1.2020 P.S.Parihar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned family court erred in awarding interim maintenance to the respondent given that the appellant was a student and unemployed.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the interim maintenance award or require expeditious disposal of the main suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar
Arati
Bala Krishna Narayana
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
