Happy Sharma vs Smt. Anita Sharma

Both the appeals are barred by limitation. The appellanthusband has filed separate applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the appeals.

For stated reasons, the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. The delay occurred in filing of both the appeals is condoned.

These two appeals have been preferred by appellanthusband Happy Sharma through Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, learned counsel, who has been assigned to him by the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee.

Both the appeals are between the same parties and have been filed by appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. Appeal No.2501/2019 challenges the order dated 08.03.2019 whereby application, being Civil Misc. Case No.19/2018 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the respondent-wife in the Civil Miscellaneous Case No.106/2018 - Anita Vs. Happy Sharma under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed and the appellant-husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- by 10th day of every month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 16.03.2018 till final disposal of Civil Miscellaneous Case No.106/2018. Whereas Appeal No.2502/2019 challenges the order dated 08.03.2019 whereby application, being Civil Misc. Case No.30/201 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the respondent-wife in the Civil Miscellaneous Case No.197/2018 - Happy Sharma Vs. Anita under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed and the appellant-husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- by 10th day of every month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 08.03.2019 till final disposal of Civil Miscellaneous Case No.197/2018. Both these orders have been passed by the same Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Bharatpur, in two proceedings.

That apart, the appellant-husband has also been required to pay yet another sum of Rs.2500/- in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by order dated 25.04.2018 by the same Family Court.

Even though, the Family Court in the impugned order, has given adjustment of the amount payable as monthly interim maintenance to the respondent-wife under any other enactment but the learned Family Court has passed two separate orders on two different applications. Both the applications were decided by two different orders passed on the same day but the learned Family Court made observation that by separate orders passed on the same day the same amount of maintenance was being granted to the respondent-wife.

Perusal of the impugned orders do not indicate whether the learned Family Court, Bharatpur, intended to grant a total maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, when both the applications were decided on the same day by the same Court could have been to combined to decide the applications by common order and indicate a to how a total amount was to be paid by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife taking note of means of his income as also needs of the respondent-wife.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, however, we set the appellant-husband at liberty to make a fresh application before the Family Court, Bharatpur, for clarification/modification in the impugned orders. The Family Court, Bharatpur, would decide the same afresh by a reasoned order as to how much total amount it intended to grant to the respondent-wife. Such order, it goes without saying, shall be passed after copy of the application so filed by the appellant-husband is provided to the respondent-wife and after hearing the respondent-wife.

With that observation, both the appeals are disposed of. This also disposes of stay applications.

Office to place a copy of this order in connected file.