Partly allowed

Narendra Singh v. Gaganbala

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2022CMA/1391/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside interim maintenance awarded to the appellant's wife due to her independent income. The maintenance for the minor daughter was enhanced from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month, emphasizing the father's statutory duty.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance to respondent No. 1 (wife) was quashed. Maintenance to respondent No. 2 (minor daughter) was enhanced to Rs. 8,000 per month.

Narendra Singh Vs Gaganbala — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1391/2022

¶3

Narendra Singh S/o Dharampal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sethi Colony, Ward No. 28, Hanumangarh Town Tehsil And Distt. Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gaganbala W/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, D/ o Shri Daya Ram, R/o Ward No. 8, Sadulshahar Distt. Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

Kanika @ Manvi D/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 4 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Sadulshahar Distt. Sri Ganganagar. Through Natural Guardian Mother Gaganbala.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary Mr. B.R. Jajra For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Judgment

¶12

13/10/2022

¶13

The present miscellaneous appeal is filed for assailing the order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’) in Civil Case No.27/2021: Gaganbala & Anr. vs. Narendra Singh , whereby application filed by respondent No.1, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) has been allowed and appellant was directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to to the tune of 4,000/- per₹ month to respondent No.1 and 4,000/- per month to respondent₹ No.2, appellant’s wife and daughter respectively.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CMA-1391/2022]

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court had passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, in a perfunctory manner, without appreciating the fact that the respondent No.1 is working as teacher in a Government school and earning more than 50,000/- per month. Counsel further₹ submitted that Section 24 of the Act of 1955 provides that maintenance is to be allowed, either to wife or husband, as the case may be, not having independent income sufficient to support himself/herself. Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 is having independent income sufficient to maintain herself as well as minor daughter. It was thus prayed that the order date 25.07.2022, passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant is working on the post of Officer Scale-I in Punjab National Bank, Branch-Panchkula, Haryana with a monthly income of around 70,000, therefore order dated 25.07.2022₹ passed by Family Court deserves to be maintained. Learned counsel however, was not in a position to refute the fact that respondent is working as teacher in a Government School.

¶18

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶19

In the case of Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain reported in AIR (SCW) 4417 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed:

¶20

"8. 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, regard being had to the

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CMA-1391/2022]

¶23

petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for 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 and also after taking into account 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 by its very nature is 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."

¶24

Undisputably, the appellant is working on the post of Officer Scale-I in Punjab National Bank, Branch-Panchkula, Haryana and earning a salary of about 70,000/-, therefore, it is his duty to₹ maintain the minor daughter and provide her the best of education while upbringing her in a lifestyle, she deserves. The appellant who is the father of respondent No.2 having sufficient source of income cannot shy away from the responsibility of maintaining minor daughter.

¶25

It is settled that a father having sufficient means not only has statutory but even moral and social obligation to maintain his minor children who are unable to maintain themselves. The object of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 while providing maintenance pendente lite is that children should not be left in helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.

¶26

Considering the fact that respondent No.1 is working as teacher in a Government School, having independent source of

¶27

(4 of 4) [CMA-1391/2022]

¶28

income sufficient to support herself, the Family Court in conformity with Section 24 of the Act of 1955, ought not have directed the appellant to pay maintenance pendente lite to the tune of 4,000/- per month₹ , vide order dated 25.07.2022, in favour of respondent No.1.

¶29

In view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 25.07.2022, passed by Family Court, Hanumangarh in Civil Case No.27/2021. Accordingly, the maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 (wife) is quashed and set aside while the maintenance ordered in favour of respondent No.2 (minor daughter) is enhanced from 4,000/- per month to₹ ₹8,000/- per month. It is ordered that the appellant shall pay maintenance amount of ₹8000 to respondent No.2 (minor daughter) from the date of this order.

¶30

The miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶33

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶34

61-skm/-

Narendra Singh v. Gaganbala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh v. Gaganbala

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

M/S Swaroop Art Vs Union of India

Mana Ram and Ors. Vs State

Neha Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Bharti and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Pura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan