Moolchand vs Bhanwari

This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 29.11.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Petition No.6/19 (CIS No.239/19), whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 25.2.19 to 31.10.19 and further to pay Rs.6,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.19.

The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and legal expenses Rs.10,000/- in lump sum. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture and livestock.

The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that the respondent has deserted him without any reason and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The appellant denied that he is earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It was averred that as a matter of fact, while working as a labour, he is earning Rs.3,000-4,000 per month and therefore, not in position to give any maintenance to the respondent.

After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite to the respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is earning only Rs.3,000-4,000 per month and therefore, he is not in position to pay any maintenance to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence produced by the appellant to establish that the respondent has source of income from agriculture and livestock and thus, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court on the basis of speculation, is not justified. Learned counsel submitted that while working as a labour, the appellant gets the work only for four months in a year during the cultivation season but the Family Court has failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter.

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

Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance.

A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Family Court has not accepted the stand of the respondent that the appellant is earning Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture and livestock rather, the assessment of the income of the respondent is made taking into consideration the minimum wages notified. Thus, while assessing the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month, a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent towards the maintenance pendente lite. Further, instead of awarding maintenance for the period w.e.f. 25.2.19 to 31.10.19 @ Rs.6,000/- per month, only Rs.25,000/- lump sum has been awarded and no amount is awarded towards the litigation expenses.

It is true that the income of the appellant from various sources as pleaded was not established by any cogent evidence on record, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Family Court regarding the income of the appellant and the order passed directing payment of meager amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance pendente lite, cannot be said to be excessive.

No case for interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction is made out.

The appeal is therefore, dismissed.