Smt. Neera Bai Yadav v. K.K. Yadav

Smt. Neera Bai Yadav, W/o K.K. Yadav. Aged about 36 years, through Ramotin Bai, Near Verma's house, Bheema Nagar, Sikola, Durg (CG). Versus K.K. Yadav, S/o Sri Dileshwar Yadav, Aged about 47 years, Near Triiochan Bal Mandir, Kelabadi, Durg, Tahsil apd Dis^rict Durg (CG). Present:- Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. (ORALORDER) (Passed on 29th November, 2006) The foliowing oral order of the Court was passed by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short "the Act, 1984") has been directed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, on 18-09-2006 in Case No.81-A/2006 by which the application fiied by appeliant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955") for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings has been rejected. The appeiiant under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 instituted an appiication for restitution of conjugal n'ghts against respondent, inter afia, pleading that she was mamed to respondent long back 18-19 years and since then she was iiving with him as his wife and out of their wedlock two children were born. On 15-04-2002 respondent ousted her from his 1^^^ house, kept another woman and without any reason has deserted her. The respondent denied the claim and pleaded that appellant is not his legally married wife. Appeilant was married at Kalabandha, Bhilai. She ieft her husband and by Chudi custom married to another person, thereafter she developed love affairs wjth the respondent and lived with him. She has developed jllicit relation wjth one Satyendra Shrivastava. She wHIfully teft his house on 19-04-2002 and was leading aduiterous ijfe since then with Satyendra Shrivastava. Appellant fiied an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente fite and expenses of proceedings. The sajd application was opposed by the respondent. Learned Court beiow heid that without evidence it is djfficuit to adjudicate that appeilant is legally \ft^dded wH!e of respondent and js not ieading adulterous life, therefore, taking into consideration that there is no possibHJty of delay in disposal of the fis, dismjssed the intserim application fiied under Secb'on 24 ofthe Act, 1955. ^^. During arguments iearned counsel for the appettant contended that Jearned Court below overlooked that appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife for a long time, therefore, they shail be treated as husband and wife jn the eye of Saw. He further contended that appelJant has no source of jncome; therefore, Jearned Court below erred by disajlowing her maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. It is not in disjxjte that respondent has chaltenged the relation of husband andwife and also chalienged her fidelity, even aiieged tfiat she is leading adulators life. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 authorised the Court to allow maintenance pendente Ste and expenses of proceedings to the wjfe or husband, as the case may be. Here in the instant case by specific pleadings, with detaiied particuiars the relationshjp has been chatlenged. therefore, the Court below on the ground of dlsputed relationship, dispute regarding chastity, as weil also taking into consideration that the case is likeiy to be decided shortly has reftised grant of interim relief to the appellant. in our considered opinion the reasons assigned by the Court beiow for refusal to ailow ad-interim relief are not erroneous. No other points have been raised by the appeltant in the course of arguments. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liabte to be dismissed summariiy and is accordingiy dismissed In limine. No costs. Gowri Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge