Arun Kumar & another vs Smt. Chanchal Sharma & another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

By Court:-

Above-titled appeals have been filed against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in O.S. No.

671/2012, Arun Kumar v. Smt. Chanchal Sharma. AO No. 18/2018 has been filed by the husband Mr. Arun Kumar, while the AO No. 61/2018 has

been filed by the wife Smt. Chanchal Sharma. By the impugned order, the husband Mr. Arun Kumar has been directed to pay an interim maintenance

@ Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month during the pendency of the suit of dissolution of marriage filed by the husband under Section

13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the expenses

of the proceedings.

Marriage of the couple was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 03.02.2008. The aforesaid suit itself was filed in the year 2012.

During the pendency of the suit, the wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente

lite and expenses of the proceedings. On the said application, impugned order dated 18.12.2017 has been passed directing the husband Mr. Arun

Kumar to pay an interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month during the pendency of the suit and Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the expenses of the proceedings. This order has been challenged both by the husband and wife, as has already

been referred to above.

Case of the appellant/husband before this Court is that the interim maintenance awarded by the court below is exorbitant. Moreover, the wife, apart

from the said application, has also filed an application under Section 125 CrPC as well as another application under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as the ‘Domestic Violence Act’) where monthly maintenance @

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) respectively has been granted. Contention of learned

Counsel for the husband is that though the court below while passing the impugned order has considered the maintenance awarded to the wife under

Section 125 CrPC, but it did not consider the amount of maintenance awarded to her under the Domestic Violence Act.

The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, would argue that the amount fixed by the court below is meager, particularly

considering the fact that her husband Mr. Arun Kumar is a teacher in prestigious Doon School and he is getting a monthly salary of Rs.75,000/-

(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only).

Be that as it may, we do not find force in the contentions of both the parties for the following reasons:-

As far as the contention of the appellant/husband regarding non-consideration of the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) granted

under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, we are not inclined to accept this argument as Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nowhere

provides that while fixing the interim maintenance, the court is bound to consider other kinds of maintenance granted to the wife or husband, as the

case might be.

As far as argument of the wife/respondent about enhancement of maintenance is concerned, we find the amount of interim maintenance as

reasonable. Moreover it is essentially an interim maintenance. Therefore, no interference is liable to be made in the present appeals. Consequently,

both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Having done so, we are also of a considered view that since the suit itself was filed way back in the

year 2012 and it is pending for the last more than six years, therefore, it is in clear violation of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section

21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under:-

“21-B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act .- (1) The trial of a petition under this Act, shall, do as far as is

practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the court finds the

adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

(2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from

the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent.

(3) Every appeal under this Act shall be heard as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing within three months

from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondent.â€​

We are not at all happy with the manner in which the proceedings have gone before the Family Court. Therefore, Additional Judge, Family Court,

Dehradun is directed to decide the suit expeditiously since it is already pending for the last more than 6 years and as we have been informed now that

the case is fixed for evidence, we direct that there unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to either of the parties and if possible, day-to-day

hearing shall be conducted in the matter. It is also directed that if any adjournment is sought which is not reasonable, it shall only be granted by

imposing an exemplary cost.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/husband has apprised this Court that the appellant is presently a teacher in Doon School and it

will be difficult for him to attend the proceedings on daily basis and he could only get leave once in a week. The appellant would be at liberty to

apprise this aspect to the Family Court which shall be duly considered by the Family Court.

Let the parties be present before the Family Court on 13.09.2018. Meanwhile, the appellant/husband shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees

Five Thousand Only) to the respondent-wife for the expenses which she has incurred while travelling to Nainital.