Garima Singh v. Ravi Prakash, under Section
Case Details
The brief facts of the case culled out from the record available before us are that the respondent/wife has filed a petition, bearing Petition No. 1115 of 2022, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’ for the sake of brevity). In the Page No. 2 of 8 aforesaid suit, the respondent/wife also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein she pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 16.04.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals; after marriage, appellant and his family members have tortured the respondent for dowry but even then, she kept mum; on 15.11.2019, the respondent/ wife came to her parental house along with her father and on
03.12.2019, a boy was born by operation at Saket Hospital, Ayodhya but the appellant has not spent a single penny towards medical expenses and all the expenses were made by her parents. Respondent/wife further pleaded that her husband (appellant) is working in a private company, namely, Goyal and Chawla Company at New Delhi, from which he earns Rs.70,000/- as salary and in addition to that, he also has an additional agriculture income of Rs.70,000/- per month. Respondent/wife has further pleaded that she does not have any source of income nor has she any skill by which she can maintain herself. In this backdrop, the respondent/wife prayed to award Rs.50000/- per month as an interim maintenance. (4) The appellant filed objection against the aforesaid application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein he admitted the fact that the respondent is his wife and he has instituted a case under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant has further stated in his objection that presently, he is working in a private company and his income from salary is Page No. 3 of 8 Rs.30,000/- per month. Appellant has also pleaded that appellant wants to keep his wife/respondent but his wife by making false and fabricated allegations has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. In this background, appellant has prayed for rejection of the application filed by his wife/respondent under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. (5) Apparently, vide an order dated 14.02.2024, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, has allowed partly the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 of the respondent/wife, awarding lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance, till disposal of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. (6) Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant himself has instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights but the respondent did not want to come to matrimonial home and by making frivolous and baseless allegations, she instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for divorce. The Family Court, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has erroneously directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent by means of the impugned order. Page No. 4 of 8 (7) We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and have also perused the records available before us on this appeal. (8) Before analyzing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be apt to discuss the intent of Section 24 of the Act, 1955. For this purpose, Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which is relevant in the present context, reads as under :- "24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings: Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner' s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable." (9) A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that intention of the legislature is that where, in any proceedings, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, order the respondent to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceeding. These words make the Page No. 5 of 8 intention of the legislature quite clear that expenses have to be allowed by the Court, as a support system, if the requirement as provided under Section 24 of Act, 1955 are fulfilled for a period during the pendency of the suit or proceeding. (10) The cause of action for filing a case under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 would arise only when there is a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband or wife. Therefore, the primary requirement for claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding. This provision was introduced with a laudable object of ensuring “support and maintenance” to a party in the proceeding so as to enable him or her to maintain themselves during the pendency of such proceedings. This provision also permits the Court to award a reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting the matrimonial proceeding. There is no ceiling limit prescribed for the purpose of granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeks to maintain an equilibrium between the two parties to the litigation during the pendency of the proceeding as it makes provision for payment of as and towards support and maintenance for a party who is in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to diligently contest the proceeding on account of poor economic condition. (11) In the instant case, on the basis of submissions made by the Page No. 6 of 8 learned Counsel for the appellant, the question before us, under the facts and circumstances of the case, would be ‘whether during pendency of the divorce petition filed by the wife/respondent or during the pendency of suit filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, would deter the Court to grant a statutory right vested upon the wife and whether the compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month granted by the Court to the respondent/wife is appropriate’. It is to be remembered in this context that only an allegation of cruelty has been raised by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband and it is a fact yet to be proved by adducing cogent evidence by the respondent/wife to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, in allowing a special benefit bestowed upon a party in view of the objective to be achieved by the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1955, cannot be faulted with for the simple reason that the allegation by the appellant are at a very nascent stage, veracity of which is still to be examined by a competent Court of law and in any case if such a position is not accepted, in every case an unscrupulous husband or wife, as the case may be, can always raise such an allegation against the spouse to avoid any liability to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance, which, according to this Court, would not be the legislative intent while enacting such a beneficial provision in the Act, Page No. 7 of 8
1955. (12) It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is a piece of beneficial legislation and as such, duty is cast on the Court to exercise its discretion in awarding amount for support and maintenance during the ligation proceedings, so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse, who has filed proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act, 1955. The very objective of interim maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage. The Court, while considering the merits of an application for grant of an interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, has to necessarily arrive at prima facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimant. The determination cannot be made with exactitude as it is essentially interim in nature. The Court is called upon to make a summary consideration of amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in accordance with the financial resources of the parties. (13) It is relevant to add here that the right to claim maintenance and expense during pendency of proceedings under the Act, 1955, is a special right bestowed on the disadvantageous Page No. 8 of 8 spouse, irrespective of the result of the main relief under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. So far as the amount of compensation provided by the Court is concerned, looking into the earning of the appellant, we do not find the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in any manner excessive whatsoever. Therefore, in the present case, allowing the claim of the respondent/wife for interim maintenance and litigation expenses by means of the impugned order by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, cannot be faulted with as the same is legally sustainable and is not liable to be interfered with. (14) For all the aforesaid reasons, the present First Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ajit
The brief facts of the case culled out from the record available before us are that the respondent/wife has filed a petition, bearing Petition No. 1115 of 2022, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’ for the sake of brevity). In the Page No. 2 of 8 aforesaid suit, the respondent/wife also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein she pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 16.04.2016 according to Hindu rites and rituals; after marriage, appellant and his family members have tortured the respondent for dowry but even then, she kept mum; on 15.11.2019, the respondent/ wife came to her parental house along with her father and on
03.12.2019, a boy was born by operation at Saket Hospital, Ayodhya but the appellant has not spent a single penny towards medical expenses and all the expenses were made by her parents. Respondent/wife further pleaded that her husband (appellant) is working in a private company, namely, Goyal and Chawla Company at New Delhi, from which he earns Rs.70,000/- as salary and in addition to that, he also has an additional agriculture income of Rs.70,000/- per month. Respondent/wife has further pleaded that she does not have any source of income nor has she any skill by which she can maintain herself. In this backdrop, the respondent/wife prayed to award Rs.50000/- per month as an interim maintenance. (4) The appellant filed objection against the aforesaid application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein he admitted the fact that the respondent is his wife and he has instituted a case under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant has further stated in his objection that presently, he is working in a private company and his income from salary is Page No. 3 of 8 Rs.30,000/- per month. Appellant has also pleaded that appellant wants to keep his wife/respondent but his wife by making false and fabricated allegations has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. In this background, appellant has prayed for rejection of the application filed by his wife/respondent under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. (5) Apparently, vide an order dated 14.02.2024, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, has allowed partly the application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 of the respondent/wife, awarding lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance, till disposal of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. (6) Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant himself has instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights but the respondent did not want to come to matrimonial home and by making frivolous and baseless allegations, she instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for divorce. The Family Court, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has erroneously directing the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent by means of the impugned order. Page No. 4 of 8 (7) We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and have also perused the records available before us on this appeal. (8) Before analyzing the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be apt to discuss the intent of Section 24 of the Act, 1955. For this purpose, Section 24 of the Act, 1955, which is relevant in the present context, reads as under :- "24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings: Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner' s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable." (9) A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that intention of the legislature is that where, in any proceedings, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, order the respondent to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceeding. These words make the Page No. 5 of 8 intention of the legislature quite clear that expenses have to be allowed by the Court, as a support system, if the requirement as provided under Section 24 of Act, 1955 are fulfilled for a period during the pendency of the suit or proceeding. (10) The cause of action for filing a case under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 would arise only when there is a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband or wife. Therefore, the primary requirement for claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is the pendency of a matrimonial proceeding. This provision was introduced with a laudable object of ensuring “support and maintenance” to a party in the proceeding so as to enable him or her to maintain themselves during the pendency of such proceedings. This provision also permits the Court to award a reasonable amount for the purpose of conducting the matrimonial proceeding. There is no ceiling limit prescribed for the purpose of granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeks to maintain an equilibrium between the two parties to the litigation during the pendency of the proceeding as it makes provision for payment of as and towards support and maintenance for a party who is in a disadvantageous position to maintain and to diligently contest the proceeding on account of poor economic condition. (11) In the instant case, on the basis of submissions made by the Page No. 6 of 8 learned Counsel for the appellant, the question before us, under the facts and circumstances of the case, would be ‘whether during pendency of the divorce petition filed by the wife/respondent or during the pendency of suit filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act, 1955, would deter the Court to grant a statutory right vested upon the wife and whether the compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month granted by the Court to the respondent/wife is appropriate’. It is to be remembered in this context that only an allegation of cruelty has been raised by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband and it is a fact yet to be proved by adducing cogent evidence by the respondent/wife to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, in allowing a special benefit bestowed upon a party in view of the objective to be achieved by the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1955, cannot be faulted with for the simple reason that the allegation by the appellant are at a very nascent stage, veracity of which is still to be examined by a competent Court of law and in any case if such a position is not accepted, in every case an unscrupulous husband or wife, as the case may be, can always raise such an allegation against the spouse to avoid any liability to pay the litigation expenses and interim maintenance, which, according to this Court, would not be the legislative intent while enacting such a beneficial provision in the Act, Page No. 7 of 8
1955. (12) It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is a piece of beneficial legislation and as such, duty is cast on the Court to exercise its discretion in awarding amount for support and maintenance during the ligation proceedings, so that the indigent spouse may not suffer at the instance of the affluent spouse, who has filed proceedings under any of the provisions of the Act, 1955. The very objective of interim maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage. The Court, while considering the merits of an application for grant of an interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, has to necessarily arrive at prima facie determination about the earning capacity of the rival claimant. The determination cannot be made with exactitude as it is essentially interim in nature. The Court is called upon to make a summary consideration of amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in accordance with the financial resources of the parties. (13) It is relevant to add here that the right to claim maintenance and expense during pendency of proceedings under the Act, 1955, is a special right bestowed on the disadvantageous Page No. 8 of 8 spouse, irrespective of the result of the main relief under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. So far as the amount of compensation provided by the Court is concerned, looking into the earning of the appellant, we do not find the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month in any manner excessive whatsoever. Therefore, in the present case, allowing the claim of the respondent/wife for interim maintenance and litigation expenses by means of the impugned order by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, cannot be faulted with as the same is legally sustainable and is not liable to be interfered with. (14) For all the aforesaid reasons, the present First Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ajit