Sunil Kumar Singh vs Smt. Suman Singh And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8516 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 189 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- Smt. Suman Singh And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kamendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

The first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.2021 and decree dated 16.3.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case no.1324/2017 (Smt. Suman Singh and and another vs Sunil Singh) under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.

The challenge to the decision of the Family Court for payment of maintenance is based on the ground that the respondent wife earns Rs.12,000/- per month and that the petitioner is already paying Rs.8,000/- in two proceedings namely Section 125 Cr.P.C and Domestic Violence Act.

It is then submitted that the daughter of the petitioner i.e respondent no.2 is highly educated and she had completed M-Tech and is earning huge amount.

All these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order impugned had been considered by the court below. It is categorically recorded in the order impugned that the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Domestic Violence Act are in different arena. The maintenance awarded under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is in accordance with the said provision. The petitioner cannot deny his liability to maintain his wife and unmarried daughter.

As regard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his daughter is highly qualified on a pointed query made by the Court as to whether the petitioner had discharged his liability as a father and contributed for education of his daughter, no answer could be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

As regard the financial status of the petitioner, categorical findings of the fact had been recorded by the family court that the basic salary of the petitioner is Rs.58,000/- and apart from the said income he has large chunk of land in his name and from time to time from his landed property, he received a fair amount of money. He has his own house and also earns Rs.15,000/- per month from the rental income.

All these findings are not subject matter of the challenge in the appeal.

For the aforesaid, the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- in total out of which Rs.5,000/- per month has been granted to wife and about Rs-3,000/- per month to the daughter, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable.

The appeal is found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.7.2021

Harshita