Dismissed

Naveen Kumar v. Payal

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2018CMA/2002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an appeal challenging the granting of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to the respondent wife. The court held the lower court erred in granting the petition allowed the same. The case was disposed of with the record sent back for expedited trial of the main divorce petition. No substantive amendment to the below order was made. The

What did the court decide?

Reject appeal; return record for expedited trial of main divorce petition.

Naveen Kumar Vs Payal — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2002/2018

¶3

Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Parmanand, Aged about 37 Years, By Caste Arora, (Ahuja), Resident of Ward No. 18, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Payal W/o Naveen Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, D/o Bhagwandas Chug, By Caste Arora, Resident of Ward No. 08, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Rajvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.R. Chawla

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶9

Judgment

¶10

26/10/2018

¶11

Appellant has preferred the instant appeal to challenge order dated 17^th of March, 2018, passed by Addl. District Judge, Anoopgarh (for short, ‘learned Court below’). By the order impugned, learned Court below has partly allowed the application of respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘Act’) in a petition for dissolution of marriage laid by her.

¶12

The facts, apposite are that respondent filed a petition for divorce against appellant, inter-alia, on the ground of physical and mental cruelty besides desertion. Pleading atrocities against appellant, respondent has also averred in the divorce petition that

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[CMA-2002/2018]

¶15

she was falsely castigated for adultery by him. Respondent further averred that by categorizing her unchaste appellant has perpetrated mental cruelty. Alleging misappropriation of her Stridhan and uprooting from matrimonial home, respondent clearly stated in the petition that appellant has deserted her for last two years and there is no cohabitation between spouses since then.

¶16

Petition for divorce is contested by appellant by filing reply. In the return, appellant denied all the allegations with full emphasis. Trial of the petition is under progress.

¶17

During pendency of divorce petition, respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite . The application is opposed by appellant. Learned Court below, by the order impugned, partly allowed the application of respondent-wife and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per mensem .

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused impugned order and scanned record of the case. In support of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on following judgments:

¶19

(1) Bhanwarlal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi (1981 WLN 343),

¶20

(2) Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumar & Anr. [SLP(C) No.6301/2017, decided on 9^th of April 2018)

¶21

The right of a wife for maintenance is an incident of status or estate of matrimony. Therefore, in general, a husband is bound to defray the wife’s costs of any proceedings under the Act and to

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CMA-2002/2018]

¶24

provide her maintenance and support pending disposal of such proceedings. The only exception for grant of maintenance pendente lite is that wife has separate means sufficient for her defence and subsistence. In the instant case, the respondent wife, in her application, has stated on oath that she is unemployed and having no separate means sufficient for her defence and subsistence. A bare reading of Section 24 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that it has conferred ample discretion on the Court to order for maintenance pendente lite and costs of the proceedings. It goes without saying that any decision under this Section to the extent of quantum of maintenance depends on facts and circumstances of an individual case. The language employed in Section 24 of the Act is so clear and explicit that mere denial of factum of marriage is no bar to the power of the Court to make an order for maintenance pendente lite . It is also noteworthy that application under Section 24 of the Act is ordinarily decided on affidavits.

¶25

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the learned Court below has objectively considered the application of respondent supported by her affidavit, while granting moderate amount of Rs.3,000 per mensem as maintenance pendente lite. The judgments, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, in my view, are factually distinguishable, and therefore, I am unable to find any manifest error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

¶26

Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CMA-2002/2018]

¶29

Let record of the case be sent back to learned Court below. The learned Court below is requested to expedite trial of the main petition for divorce, for its prompt disposal.

¶30

(P.K. LOHRA),J

Naveen Kumar v. Payal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar v. Payal

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

Aadram Vs Prahalad

Mishri Lal Vs State

Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs Oswal Singh Sabha through Scretary Prasann Chand

Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Limited Vs Smt. Sugana and Ors.

Narendra Kaur Vs Gurnam Singh

Smt. Chakki and Ors. Vs Mansukh Bhai J Bariya and Ors.