Allahabad High Court
Saley Singh vs Suman on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 532 of 2022
Appellant :- Saley Singh
Respondent :- Suman
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This first appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in suit no. 1734 of 2020 filed by the appellant whereby the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act of the wife Smt. Suman has been allowed.
By the impugned order, learned Family Court partially allowed the application of Smt. Suman under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and awarded the amount of Rs. 250/- for conveyance and meals to each date fixed in the court and one time payment Rs. 7000/- as advocate fee and one time interim maintenance of Rs. 1 lac.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to challenge the order of one time interim maintenance only on the ground that he is a pensioner. The unmarried son of the parties living with the opp.party Smt.Suman namely, Vikas is also earning Rs. 50,000/- per month by serving in Municipality. He himself has transferred his house in the name of his wife opp. party no. 2 Smt. Suman wherein she is residing since 2004. There are four shops also in the house. The wife is enjoying of Rs. 35000/- per month as rent of these shops. The appellant has to bear responsibilities of giving gifts to his sisters also on the festivals. The wife is living in adultery with a police man since 2004. If the wife agrees, he is ready to pay her Rs. 2 lacs as one time alimony. Hence, the prayer is made to set aside the impugned order.
The perusal of the record indicates that the parties are living separately since 2004. According to the appellant, out of the two children; one is living with the appellant and another is staying with the opp. party no. 2 Smt. Suman. As per wife's version, the appellant is having 21 bighas of agricultural land. He has invested a handsome amount in share market also. He is a retired person from Delhi police and is getting pension. The appellant has deserted his wife since long, hence, she is entitled for the amount claimed.
From the perusal of the divorce petition, it is clear that the appellant has not mentioned therein about the existence of any shops in the house and also about the income of the wife from the rent of these shops. Whether the wife is living in adultery is a matter to be decided at the time of final decision. There is nothing on record to show the rental income of the wife and the salaried income of unmarried son Vikas who is said to have been staying with the wife. The learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant is having 12 bighas agricultural land, that is a joint property wherein he is having only 1/4th share.
Admittedly, the wife is living separately since 2004, the appellant has not paid a single penny towards expenses of the wife and the child who must be minor at that time. So in our opinion, if the family court has awarded one time interim maintenance of Rs. 1 lac to the wife which in these days of inflation, it is a meager amount and can not be said to excessive.
Thus, no material is found to sustain the challenge to the impugned order.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022
Gss
