Allahabad High Court
Saneep Chauhan vs Seema Chauhan on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 45 of 2021
Appellant :- Saneep Chauhan
Respondent :- Seema Chauhan
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Ashish Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Present First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No.298 of 2019 (Seema Chauhan v. Saneed Chauhan) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short "the Act") filed by the defendant-respondent in Original Petition No.782 of 2019 (Saneep Chauhan v. Seema Chauhan) under Section 13 (1) A of Hindu Marriage Act by which the Principal Judge allowed the case of the defendant-respondent and passed the order directing the appellant to pay Rs.30,000/- for the respondent and Rs.10,000/- each for two minor children on every month; Rs.40,000/- one time and Rs.2000/- on every date fixed before the Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.
The facts in brief, as gathered from the record, are that the respondent-wife married the appellant on 24.04.2008 but thereafter their relations could not run smoothly. Consequently, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs.50,000/- as interim maintenance per month and Rs.40,000/- for litigation expenses. The appellant-husband has filed his objection stating that his wife has deserted him of her own and has gone to live in separate portion of the house. Considering the above facts, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar has returned a finding that the respondent-wife has clearly stated that she has no income. It is further mentioned in the order that the appellant-husband admitted that he is earning Rs.90,000/- per month as rental income. In this backdrop of the matter, the Principal Judge has passed the order impugned according interim maintenance.
The sole contention made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said amount is on the higher side and, therefore, the same may be reduced.
Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings. It reads thus:-
"S.24.- Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."
Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, may apply to the Court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the Court may think reasonable, having regard to the applicant's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which the Section is couched indicates that a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court for grant of interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the Court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the Court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance is by its very nature temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the Court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors, which are mentioned in the statute.
In the case at hand, it is apparent that the respondent-wife has no source of income to enable her to contest this case. She needs to be awarded interim maintenance. It is also on record that she has to attend the Court proceedings on each date.
Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, the order impugned has been passed. In our opinion, the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and hence requires no interference.
The First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the appellant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021
SP/
