The Allahabad High Court, in an appeal filed by the husband challenging the maintenance order, observed that the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed by a husband challenging an order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, under Section 24 of the 1955 Act directing him to pay a one-time Rs. 50K as “legal activities” to his wife. Further, he was directed to pay a one-time Rs.10K as litigation costs and Rs.500/—per hearing within 30 days from the order date in the application filed by the wife seeking pendent-lite maintenance in the divorce suit filed by the husband under Section 13 of the 1955 Act.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the family court failed to consider that the respondent is living separately from the appellant-husband without any valid justification. Further, it was submitted that the family court overlooked the fact that the husband's department had already directed him to pay Rs. 67K in instalments for his family's maintenance, which the court should have factored into while allowing the wife's application.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the family court had merely granted the expenses which the wife will make in the divorce suit before the Family Court, and if any amount was being under the orders of the Department for maintenance of children, the same does not in any manner impact the expenses which the wife is required to make in the suit before the Family Court.
Further, the court stated that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife arises on marriage, whereas such an obligation towards the children arises on their birth, and these obligations were imposed on him by operation of law and further, it is a sacred duty of an ably-bodied husband or father, as the case may be, towards his wife and children to maintain in all circumstances.
The court observed that in matrimonial proceedings, the wife and children are pitted against the husband or the father, as the case may be, and in most cases, they are not on equal footing. Some get financial support from their parents, brothers, and sisters, and some work and earn in exceptional cases. However, in all cases, the women and children are unable to face the onslaught of matrimonial proceedings because of their financial crisis, which tends to be exploited by the husbands.
Further, the court observed that the paramount interest of the wife is to be adjudged on the parameters given in Section 24 of the 1955 Act, whether she has independent and sufficient income for her upkeep or not. It was stated that this provision aims to balance this very financial disparity in matrimonial proceedings by providing pendent-lite maintenance to the wife during the pendency of the case arising out of the matrimonial dispute. The court stated that in the present case, no material was brought on record to point out that the wife has no independent source of income for her sustenance and that the husband is a colonel in the Indian Army and draws a handsome salary.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Arun Pandey vs. Neha Pandey
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon’ble Mr Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: First Appeal No. 195 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prachish Pandey
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
