Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Smt. Anjani Alias Ruchi Alias ... on 28 July, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49738-DB
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 39 of 2023
Appellant :- Mukesh Kumar
Respondent :- Smt. Anjani Alias Ruchi Alias Anjali
Counsel for Appellant :- Achyuta Nand Verma,Sharda Verma,Shravan Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arising out of the judgment/order dated 04.01.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich on the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955").
2. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the Family Court while passing the impugned judgment/order, has not adverted to and considered the maintenance paid by the appellant as per the order passed under Section 125 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). It is on this ground that the order passed by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite has been assailed before this Court.
3. The appeal itself has been filed with a delay of 143 days.
4. It is not the case before us that simultaneous proceedings under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 are barred. We have also glanced through the order impugned in the present appeal and it is gathered that the financial status of the present appellant has duly been considered by the Family Court while fixing the further liability of Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that a sum of Rs.2,000/- has also been awarded to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In total a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month has been fixed towards monthly maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife.
5. In absence of any jurisdictional error and looking to the fact that the appellant-husband has approached this Court without making necessary compliance of the order impugned and the appeal is delayed, we are not satisfied that any plausible justification is offered for seeking condonation of delay in the present appeal except the routine execuse. That apart, the pendency of the present appeal would again dragged the respondent unemployed lady in the present litigation during pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court in divorce matter and the financial implications shall multiply. Moreover, the application for recalling of the order has also been rejected by a reasoned order.
6. We are not satisfied that a case for condonation of delay in such a situation deserves to be viewed leniently. Thus, application seeking condonation of delay is hereby rejected and consequently, the appeal is also rejected. The Family Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
Order Date :- 28.7.2023
Shubhankar
