Amrit vs Alpana
2021 Latest Caselaw 5672 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20/2021

Amrit S/o Late Dharmaji Mali, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Sarneshwarji Road, In Front Of Shastri Nagar, Sirohi, Tehsil And District Sirohi.

----Appellant Versus

1. Alpana W/o Amrit Mali, Aged About 24 Years, D/o Chatra Ram, R/o Chamannagar, Sarneshwarji Bypass Road, Sirohi Tehsil And District Sirohi.

2. Dhanvi D/o Amrit, Aged About 1 Years, Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Alpana.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Jawan Singh Rao
For Respondent(s)          :     -



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Judgment

25/02/2021

By way of the instant miscellaneous appeal under

Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 19(2) of

the Family Courts Act, the appellant herein seeks to assail the

order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the learned Family Court,

Sirohi in Miscellaneous Case No.37/2020, whereby the application

filed by the respondents under Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu

Marriage Act was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay

maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month to the

respondent 1 Smt. Alpana, being his wife, and Rs.3,000/- per

month to the respondent No.2 Dhanvi, being his minor daughter.

(2 of 3) [CMA-20/2021]

Mr. Jawan Singh Rao, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the

respondent No.1 deserted the appellant and is not ready to

perform her conjugal obligations by living in the matrimonial home

with the appellant's mother and thus, as per Mr. Rao, the

respondents are not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever. He

further submits that the appellant has taken house loan and that

an instalment of Rs.9000/- per month is deducted from his salary.

Thus, the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents is

highly excessive.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant

and gone through the material available on record.

Ex facie, the contention of the counsel for the appellant

that the respondent No.1 Smt. Alpana deserted the appellant is

untenable for the reason that the proceedings before the Family

Court were initiated on an application filed by the respondent Smt.

Alpana under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the

application, it is pertinently asserted that the respondent Smt.

Alpana was turned out of the matrimonial home while she was

pregnant and the child Dhanvi was born to her thereafter. In this

background, the allegation of the appellant that it is the

respondent Smt Alpana, who has deserted him, is totally

untenable.

The Family Court assessed the income of the appellant,

who is working as a Class IV employee in the Municipality,

Pindwara, and found that the gross salary being drawn by him is

Rs.28,720/- and the take away pay is Rs.23,859/-. In this

background, the maintenance quantified by the learned Family

(3 of 3) [CMA-20/2021]

Court at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month for being paid to

the respondent No.1 and 2 respectively, cannot be termed to be

excessive by any stretch of imagination.

In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment

dated 19.11.2020 passed by the learned Family Court, Sirohi in

Miscellaneous Case No.37/2020 does not suffer from any infirmity,

illegality or perversity warranting interference by this court. We

find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed as such.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

1-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)