Smt. Reena Rawat Nayal vs Anil Nayal

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Application (CLMA No.17454/2018) to condone the delay in preferring the appeal is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The delay in preferring the appeal is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Tehri Garhwal in Original Suit No.59 of 2017 dated 09.08.2018.

An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for maintenance, expenses and transportation charges to travel from Dehradun to Tehri Garhwal, was filed by the wife (appellant herein) on 16.08.2017. In the said application, she stated that she was unemployed and had no source of livelihood.

The respondent-husband, who filed Original Suit No.59 of 2017 seeking divorce from the appellant, contested the application contending that the appellant (wife) had suppressed the fact that she was employed in Param Himalaya Homeopathic Medical College; and she was getting a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The appellant, however, contended before the trial court that she was receiving a monthly salary of only Rs.6,000/-. The court below disbelieved her statement on the ground that she was paying monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and, accordingly, rejected her application. The respondent herein (petitioner in O.S No. 59/2017) is a clerk working in the District Court, Tehri Garhwal and is, admittedly, drawing a net salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. While it is true that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that she was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/- before the court below, a copy of the pay slip for the month of July, 2018 has been produced, which shows that her monthly salary is only Rs.6,000/-. Yet another relevant fact, which is clear from the pay slip, is that the appellant joined duty only on 22.08.2017 a week after she had filed the application under Section 24 of the Act on 16.08.2017. As such, the appellant (wife) cannot be held to have suppressed the factum of her employment in her application on 16.08.2017, as she was not employed on that day. No evidence has been adduced by the husband (respondent herein) to disprove the appellant's claim that she was getting a salary of only Rs.6,000/- per month. The Court below has also failed to examine this contention.

Besides interim-maintenance, the appellant is also required to travel from Dehradun to Tehri Garhwal where the respondent herein (husband) had instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Act for divorce. She is also required to incur expenditure towards the fees for her counsel. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set-aside the order of the court below and, instead, direct the respondent herein (husband) to pay his wife (appellant herein) a monthly maintenance of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) plus Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) towards her travel expenses from Dehradun to Tehri Garhwal. The respondent herein (husband) shall in addition, pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant (wife) towards legal fees, etc.

The respondent-husband shall pay the appellant arrears of monthly maintenance plus transportation charges i.e. for a total sum of Rs.7,000/-per month commencing from the month of October, 2017. The arrears of monthly maintenance and transportation charges i.e. for a total sum of Rs.7,000/-per month, from 01.10.2017 till 30.11.2018, shall be paid by the respondent (husband) to his wife within two months from today. The respondent shall continue to pay the appellant monthly maintenance and transportation charges i.e. for Rs.7,000/- per month by the 5th of each succeeding month till O.S. No.59/2017 is finally decided.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.