The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a review petition filed against an order dismissing a civil appeal challenging an interim maintenance award under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The review petition filed under D.B. Civil Review Petition No.95/2019 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Review Petition No.95/2019
In
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2285/2019
Vinit Dang S/o Prem Kumar Dang, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Dang, Resident Of Plot No. C-680, Budh Vihar, Alwar (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Barkha Dang W/o Shri Vinit Dang, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Caste Dang, Resident Of H.no. 811, Chhapatti Colony, Manipuri, Uttar Pradesh At Present Residing At H.no. 3887,tanduwara Colony, Rewari, Hariyana
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khushwant Morwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
08/08/2019
This petition has been preferred seeking review of the judgment dated 22.05.2019 of this Court, whereby the appeal filed by appellant-petitioner against order of the Family Court, Alwar, dated 01.04.2019 dismissing the Application No.41/2019 filed against the order dated 15.07.2015 passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed.
The Family Court, invoking the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by order dated 15.07.2015 granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2000/- per month to their son from the date of filing of the application apart from payment of Rs.1000/- per hearing to the
(2 of 3)
[CRW-95/2019]
respondent-wife, till disposal of the main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,.
Mr. Khushwant Morwal, learned counsel for appellantpetitioner argued that the respondent-wife has secured the order of maintenance by making a false statement about her income. The respondent-wife, in her reply to the application filed by the appellant-petitioner, admitted before the court below that she was working as a Teacher, which apparently shows that she has adequate source of income. The document in regard to the job of the respondent-wife produced before the court below was not considered.
The kind of argument the appellant-petitioner is seeking to make now in fact tantamount to seek rehearing of the matter under the garb of review. Even otherwise, during the course of argument, reference is sought to be made to the document allegedly containing name of the respondent-wife (Annexure-5) to the petition, but perusal of the order passed by the Family Court does not indicate whether any such document was filed before that Court. The Family Court even then has granted a negligible amount of maintenance of the respondent-wife and their son, as indicated above.
The Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others - (1997) 7 SCC 7 held that the maintenance pendente lite is not only for wife but also includes maintenance of her dependent(s) whom she is also maintaining. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain - CDJ 2017 SC 352, wherein the application for interim alimony filed by the wife was resisted by the husband on the ground that she is an educated lady. While
(3 of 3)
[CRW-95/2019]
rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that it is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself.
No case for review is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//50
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when arguments seek to raise new contentions regarding the wife's income that were previously available.
Whether the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that education is no bar to claiming maintenance supports the petitioner's claim to deny maintenance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and OthersReferred¶21
(1997) 7 SCC 7 · Who else cites this
Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha JainReferred¶21
CDJ 2017 SC 352
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinit Dang
Smt. Barkha Dang
Mohammad Rafiq
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
