Disposed

Sunil Singh v. Geeta Singh

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2020FAPL/923/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against an order granting Rs.5,000/- interim maintenance to the respondent. The court upheld the lower award based on the appellant's admitted income but directed the learned Family Judge to decide the pending suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Leave to pass a suitable order regarding disposal of the suit within six months granted; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Sunil Singh Vs Geeta Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 923 of 2019 Appellant :- Sunil Singh Respondent :- Geeta Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Shive Datta Yadav

¶2

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

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶4

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No.727 of 2018 (Sunil Singh Vs. Geeta Singh) by which the Application 10(Ga) filed by the defendant-respondent Smt. Geeta Singh (wife of the appellant) 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.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- towards expenses of proceedings.

¶5

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order. Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court after considering the material on record. Came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month and thereafter he proceeded to award of Rs.5,000/- interim maintenance to the defendantrespondent.

¶6

The impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. Considering the high cost of living in these days, the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance cannot be termed as being on the higher side in view of the admitted fact that the appellant is earning Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶7

We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagqar is directed to to make every possible endeavour to decide the Original Suit No.727 of 2018 (Sunil Singh Vs. Geeta Singh) within a period of six months from the date of the certified copy of this order.

¶8

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶9

Order Date :- 3.1.2020/P.S.Parihar

Sunil Singh v. Geeta Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh v. Geeta Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Wasim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Iqrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Smt. Poonam Vs Rajiv Bariyani

Pradeep Kumar Vs Arati

Geeta Devi Vs Sushil Kumar Yadav