Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs Mohini on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019
IN
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 208 of 2019
Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar
Respondent :- Mohini
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984"), which is reported to be barred by limitation by 82 days.
2. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and are satisfied with the reason for not filing the appeal in time.
3. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
4. The application is accordingly allowed.
5. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Siddhant Sahu
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 208 of 2019
Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar
Respondent :- Mohini
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record.
2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") has arisen from order dated 01.02.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 75 of 2018, on an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") filed by respondent-wife providing for interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 1000/- each to minor children, Bhupendra and Abhimanyu and also a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. On every date, when respondent-wife would attend Court concerned, appellant shall pay Rs. 200/- towards expenses including conveyance, till the pendency of litigation.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that appellant is ready to keep his wife and children but without any valid reason, wife is residing separately. Two minor children, Bhupendra (aged 12 years) and Abhimanyu (aged 16 years) have been forced to do manual labour and, therefore, wife is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance.
4. However, it could not be disputed that both the children are still minor and dependent on appellant. Further, the marriage itself is not in dispute and liability of appellant to maintain his wife and children is also not disputed. Even the amount awarded as maintenance has not been shown unreasonable, unjust or excessive. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere.
5. In view of above, appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Siddhant Sahu
