Allowed

Padam Chand v. Chander Kanta

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2014CMPMO/209/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified a lower court order granting maintenance pende lite. The Court held that amounts paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be deducted from the Section 24 maintenance award, adjusting the monthly sum while retaining full litigation expenses.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance pending litigation reduced to Rs. 1500 after adjustment of Section 125 payment; Rs. 10,000 litigation expenses permitted.

Padam Chand Vs Chander Kanta — Maintenance and Alimony | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 209 of 2014.

¶2

	Decided on: 2.12.2014.
Padam Chand Chander Kanta	……Petitioner. Versus …….Respondent.
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Just* *Whether approved for*	*ice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.* *reporting?*¹
For the petitioner: For the respondent: -----------------------------	Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------------------

¶3

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral)

¶4

This petition is instituted against the order dated 22.5.2014 rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge (II), Shimla, H.P., passed in Application No. 190-S/6 of 2013.

¶5

Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has instituted petition under Section 13((i) (ia) (ib), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent has moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The matter was compromised in the Mega Lok Adalat on 26.10.2013, with respect to the amount of maintenance to which the respondent was entitled in the proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has agreed to enhance the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 3500/- per month instead of Rs. 1000/-. The copy of the decision passed by the Mega Lok Adalat dated 26.10.2013 is Annexure P-2. The learned Addl. District Judge (II),

¶6

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

Shimla on 22.5.2014 has granted maintenance pendente lite in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the respondent.

¶9

The case of the petitioner, precisely, is that the learned Addl. District Judge (II), Shimla, while passing the orders on 22.5.2014, has not taken into consideration the amount paid to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is settled law by now that the amount paid to the party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be taken into consideration while allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C should have been adjusted by the learned Addl. District Judge (II), Shimla against the amount awarded towards maintenance pendente lite. Thus, the respondent would be entitled to Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Rs. 3500/- as per the order dated 26.10.2013 of the Mega Lok Adalat. The respondent would be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The granting of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses is fully justifiable.

¶11

In the case of Man Singh versus Hari Devi, reported in 2011 (Supp) Him.L.R.1971 , the learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:

¶12

“4. It is urged by Shri V.D.Khidta, learned counsel for the respondent, that proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C are totally different from a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That may be so, but even while granting maintenance pendentelite under the Hindu Marriage Act the Court is bound to consider the factor whether adequate provision has been made for the maintenance of the wife by the

¶13

¶14

husband in other proceedings. I am constrained to observe that the learned trial Court did not even care to go through the reply of the husband or the documents filed by him. The learned Presiding Officer did not even care to read the application where no prayer for grant of maintenance pendentelite had been made and awarded the same @ of Rs.5,000/- per month. In the teeth of the specific averment that the husband was only a pensioner and drawing pension of Rs.2,480 per month how could maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month be granted? The learned trial Court did not even refer to the settlement arrived at in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein a huge amount was paid to her.”

¶15

In the case of Neelam Kalia versus Rajesh Kalia, reported in 2013(4) Civil Court Cases 407, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under:

¶16

“7. Accordingly, while taking all the relevant factors into consideration and on an overall view of the matter, the husband is directed to pay monthly pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each to the petitioner and minor daughter of the parties, totaling Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2013. However, since admittedly the wife and the child are already getting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, as per orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, as noticed hereinabove, the same would be adjustable against the amount of monthly maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 10,000/- payable under this judgment, meaning thereby that in addition to the said sum of Rs. 3,000/- payable under the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, the wife and the minor daughter of the parties shall get Rs. 3,500/- each from the husband as maintenance pendente lite on and w.e.f. 1.1.2013. In addition to the above, the wife shall also be paid an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the husband towards expenses of the proceedings.”

¶17

Accordingly, order dated 22.5.2014 rendered by the learned

¶18

Addl. District Judge (II), Shimla is modified, as noticed hereinabove.

¶19

¶20

The respondent would be entitled only to Rs. 1500/- by way of maintenance pendente lite per month and Rs. 3500/- as per the decision made by the Mega Lok Adalat dated 26.10.2013 and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

¶21

The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶22

December 02, 2014, ( Rajiv Sharma ), (karan) Judge.

Padam Chand v. Chander Kanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Chand v. Chander Kanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Vs Bhupender Pal

Ramesh Chand Verma Vs Vineet Chaudhary

Gian Chand Vs State of Hp

Roshan Lal Vs Narinder Chauhan

Ran Singh Vs Narinder Chauhan

Umesh Kumar Vs Kartar Singh