CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Punit Pathak vs Smt. Sweta Pathak

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 24 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 UK CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Bist, J · Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 10, 24
CASE NUMBER
Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 373 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This appeal, preferred u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 13.05.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, whereby said court has directed the Appellant (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month to his wife (Respondent) u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the Appellant and Respondent are husband and wife. They are in litigation before the trial court on the petition filed by the husband u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which the Respondent moved an application u/s 24 of said Act.

4.

It is not disputed between the parties that the Appellant is serving with Indian Air Force in the Central Accounts Office at Coimbatore. It is also not disputed that the wife is not an earning member. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that pay of Appellant is ` 9,480/- per month, and Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance is excessive. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant has tried to conceal dearness allowance and other allowances, admissible with the pay in the form of salary to the Appellant. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that salary of the Appellant is not less than Rs. 20,000/- per month.

5.

Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that Rs. 5,000/- per month would be the just and proper amount of maintenance and the Appellant should have been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to his wife during the pendency of petition u/s 10 of the Act, before the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the date trial court has awarded the maintenance. The impugned order dated 13.05.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Suit No. 152 of 2009, stands modified.