Shweta Gupta vs Rahul Gupta

Ravindra Maithani, J

Challenge in this appeal is order dated 17.11.2017 passed in Misc. Case No.216 of 2916, Smt. Shweta Gupta vs. Shri Rahul Gupta (for short the 'Case') by the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court Dehradun. By the impugned order an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') filed by the appellant has been rejected. But the respondent has been directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the appellant as expenses of the proceedings.

Facts, necessary to resolve the controversy, briefly stated are that the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Act against the appellant. During pendency of the application, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the appellant seeking Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.2,00,000/- against expenses of the proceedings. This application was objected to by the respondent. As stated, by the impugned order the application under Section 24 of the Act was partly allowed. Maintenance pendente lite has been refused but Rs.5,000/- against the expenses of the proceedings have been awarded.

According to the appellant she has no income of her own; she cannot maintain herself; respondent is a rich person, who has shops situated in Dehradun; respondent has two huge houses and other shops as well; he earns not less than Rs.1,50,000/-per month whereas the appellant is dependent on her parents. According to the objections of the respondent, the appellant is staying away from the respondent without any reasonable cause; she is able to maintain herself; respondent has a small shop from which he could earn Rs.4,000/- per month; he is ready to keep the appellant with him.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that appellant has no source of income she is dependent on her parents and the learned court below has committed an error in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for awarding maintenance pendente lite to her.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the learned court below has perused all the records including photographs of the shop being run by the respondent and also considered the fact that in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') the respondent is paying Rs.3000/-per month to the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Parties have adduced only oral evidence in support of their contention. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in fact, the photographs of the shop, which according to the appellant is being run by the respondent was submitted by the appellant herself in the court below and the court observed after perusing photographs and the articles kept in the shop that, it could be presumed that the respondent would be earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. The court below has taken into consideration that in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, the appellant is already getting Rs.3000/- from the appellant.

Having considered all the facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that since the appellant is already getting Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code, there is no reason to award any maintenance pendente lite in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code. Learned court below has not committed any error in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for pendente lite maintenance. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.