High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Sangeeta vs Kadwa

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 MP CK 0128

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Yadav, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13, 24
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 6438/2014
Ask 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

7 paragraphs · 270 words

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard on admission.

2.

Petitioner by way of present petition filed u/s 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question correctness of order dated 04.12.2013, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ''the Act'') for grant of maintenance pendent lite in a suit u/s 13 of the Act, has been rejected.

3.

Petitioner had filed an application seeking pendent lite maintenance, Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses. The trial Court taking into consideration that the petitioner has already been granted a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that two children, borne out of wedlock, are being maintained by the husband, declined to grant maintenance as sought for vide application u/s 24 of the Act.

4.

Considered the submission put forth on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

5.

The trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, did not commit any folly in rejecting the application for grant of maintenance pendent lite, taking into consideration the fact that two children borne out of wedlock are being maintained by the husband and that the petitioner is being Rs. 3,000/- per month as ordered in a proceeding u/s 125 of CrPC.

6.

In view whereof, in absence of any cogent material evidence on record to justify the claim for grant of maintenance pendent lite, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court cannot be faulted with.

7.

Consequently, no interference is caused. Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.