Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kavita vs Ashish (2025:Rj-Jd:19720-Db) on 23 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:19720-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2929/2024
Kavita W/o Ashish, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Chagan Lal, R/o
Near Government School, Shri Ramsar, Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
Ashish S/o Bharat Kumar, R/o Sundar Kutumb, Ward No. 4,
Behind Talayi, Naal Choti, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Acharya
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
23/04/2025
1. The instant appeal has been preferred claiming the following
prayers:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the present Civil
Misc. Appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be
allowed and appellant may kindly be awarded
maintenance as prayed in her application under
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
further increased maintenance may kindly be
awarded to the appellant from date of filing of the
application i.e. 31.08.2020.
Any other order which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper looking to circumstances of
the case may kindly be passed in favour of
appellant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that a marriage was
solemnized between the parties on 25.02.2020 of application
under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was brought by
the respondent-husband, in which the appellant-wife moved an
application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
alimony pendente lite.
[2025:RJ-JD:19720-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-2929/2024]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife submits that the order
passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, suffers
from two infirmities: firstly, the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month
awarded as alimony pendente lite is inadequate; and secondly,
it ought to have been granted from the date filing of the
application of the i.e. 31.08.2020, rather than the order
i.e. 09.09.2024. However, that he could not point out the monthly
income of the respondent-husband beyond noted by the learned
Trial Court, i.e., Rs. 16,653/- per month. He also informs that the
application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
pursuant to which the alimony pendente lite was granted, has
already attained finality.
3.1 It is also noted that, despite service, none appears on behalf
of the respondent-husband.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-wife and upon
perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that, since there is
no challenge by the respondent-husband to the grant of alimony
pendente lite, and the appellant-wife is unable to demonstrate any
monthly income more than Rs.16,653/-, therefore, the alimony
granted is not to be interfered with.
4.1 However, following the precedent law of Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Ors., rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
(Criminal Appeal No.730/2020), decided on 04.11.2020, this Court
is inclined to modify the order granting pendente lite maintenance
from the date of the order which is 09.09.2024 to date of filing of
the application, i.e. 31.08.2020; the relevant paragraph
nos.89 & 93, of the judgment of Rajnesh (supra), is reproduced
hereunder:-
[2025:RJ-JD:19720-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-2929/2024]
"89. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred
upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the
date of application or from the date of the order in
Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be
appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of
application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of
Criminal Procedure in the practical working of the
provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is
significant delay in disposal of the applications for
interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore
be in the interests of justice and fair play that
maintenance is awarded from the date of the
application.
93. It has therefore become necessary to issue
directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in
the orders passed by all Court, by directing that
maintenance be awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the concerned Court. The
right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of
filing the application, since the period during which the
maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within
the control of the applicant."
5. In view of the above, the present civil misc. appeal is partly
allowed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
85-devrajP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
