The First Appellate Court rejected the husband's appeal against the Family Court's order awarding Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- per month interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, finding the amount reasonable given the parties' financial positions.
The First Appeal was dismissed.
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. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 43 of 2021 Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Maurya Respondent :- Smt. Moni Maurya Counsel for Appellant :- Triloki Nath
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Triloki Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
Present First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2020 and decree dated 01.01.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Marriage Petition No.1077/2019 (Jitendra Kumar Maurya vs. Smt. Moni Maurya) whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has partly allowed the application (Paper No.10-C) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (in short, the Act) filed by the defendant-opposite party and disposed of the application (12-C) filed by the plaintiff/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as one time amount to meet out the litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent wife by way of interim maintenance during the pendency of the marriage petition from the date of filing of the application filed by the defendant/opposite party.
The facts in brief, as gathered from the record, are that the respondent-wife married the appellant on 28.5.2014 but thereafter their relations could not run smoothly. Consequently, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses in lump sum to enable her to contest the said case and Rs.10,000/- for interim maintenance and medical expenses per month. The appellant-husband has filed his objection stating that his wife has deserted him of her own and has gone to live with her parents. Considering the above facts, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has returned a finding that the respondent-wife has clearly stated that she has no income. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the income of the respondent-wife is Rs.8000/- per month from the hotel of her father, although he has admitted receiving Rs.3000/- per month. It is further mentioned in the order that the appellant-husband admitted that he has 6-7 biswal non-irrigated land, out of which he had sold 2.5
biswa land and at present, he has 3-4 biswa land. The appellant-husband has a skilled worker and looking to the present social and economic situation, the Family Court, Varanasi has estimated Rs.15,000/- as his monthly income. The respondent-wife is staying with her father from where she has to attend the Court proceedings on each date. In this backdrop of the matter, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi granted Rs.5000/- lump sum to the respondent wife as litigation expenses and also Rs.5000/per month to be paid to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance.
The sole contention made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said amount is on the higher side and, therefore, the same may be reduced.
Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings. It reads thus:-
"S.24.- Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."
Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, may apply to the Court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the Court may think reasonable, having regard to the applicant's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which the Section is couched indicates that a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court for grant of interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the Court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the Court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of
the parties incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance is by its very nature temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the Court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors, which are mentioned in the statute.
In the case at hand, it is apparent that the respondent-wife has no source of income to enable her to contest this case. She needs to be awarded interim maintenance. It is also on record that she has to attend the Court proceedings on each date from her parent's house.
Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, the award of Rs.5000/- as lump sum to meet out the litigation expenses and Rs.5000/- to be paid to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance are reasonable amount. In our opinion, the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and hence requires no interference.
The First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 RKP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of Rs.5000/- lump sum and Rs.5000/- per month for interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is reasonable.
Whether the Family Court erred in ascertaining the income of the parties while fixing the amount of interim maintenance.
Whether the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi requires interference in the first appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Kumar Maurya
Smt. Moni Maurya
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
