Kishanlal vs Kiran
2022 Latest Caselaw 10829 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 963/2022

Kishanlal S/o Shri Shyam Sunder, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Ward No. 25, Near Oswal Panchayat Bhawan, Sridoongargarh, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus Kiran W/o Kishanlal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Ward No. 25, Near Oswal Panchayat Bhawan, Sridoongargarh, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nadish Singhvi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

24/08/2022

The instant appeal under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage

Act has been preferred by the appellant Kishanlal for assailing the

judgment dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court

No.3, Bikaner whereby, application submitted by the respondent

Smt. Kiran, wife of the appellant, under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act was accepted and the appellant was directed to make

payment of lump sum litigation expenses to the tune of

Rs.10,000/-; a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses for each

date of hearing and an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by way of

maintenance to the respondent Smt. Kiran.

Shri Nadish Singhvi, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the respondent is

living in adultery. In support of this contention, he has tried to

(2 of 2) [CMA-963/2022]

draw the Court's attention to certain proceedings under Section

151, 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C., undertaken by the SDM, Sri

Dungargarh. He submitted that as the respondent is living in

adultery, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the

appellant.

We are of the firm view that the documents on which,

reliance is sought to be placed by the appellant's counsel cannot

be considered at the appellate stage because the same were not

filed before the Family Court. The Family Court considered the

entire controversy and observed that the appellant did not level

any kind of allegation whatsoever regarding the so called

extramarital affairs of the respondent wife in his affidavit.

In this background, we are of the opinion that the impugned

Judgment whereby, a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- has been

awarded to the respondent wife by way of maintenance, in

addition to the litigation expenses, does not suffer from any error,

illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein.

Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of

merit. Stay petition is also rejected.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

21-/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)