Sangeet Lodha, J.
1.This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 22.7.19 passed by the Family Court No.3, Kota in HMA Case No.11/19, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, litigation expenses Rs. 4,000/- in lump sum and Rs. 1,000/- for attending each date of hearing.
2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, legal expenses Rs. 15,000/- and travelling expenses to attend the each date of hearing a sum of Rs. 2,798/-. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed as Editor in Rajashan Patrika and drawing salary a sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month. That apart, the appellant has the rental income of Rs. 20,000-25,000.
3. The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto. The factum of the appellant being engaged in Rajasthan Patrika was denied, however, it was submitted that the appellant is engaged as Office Boy in the office of Dainik Bhaskar and presently drawing basic salary a sum of Rs. 5,850/-. While giving the details of personal expenses, the appellant averred that he is paying rent for the residential accommodation a sum of Rs. 4,500/- and incurring domestic expenditure a sum of Rs. 2,340/- and other expenses Rs. 1200/- and thus, he is not in position to pay any amount to the respondent towards the maintenance.
4. After due consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, the Family Court determined the amount payable towards maintenance pendente lite and other expenses to the respondent as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant is earning Rs. 5,850/- per month and thus, he is not in position to pay any maintenance to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Family Court has altogether ignored the details of personal expenses furnished by the appellant. However, it is not disputed before this Court that the respondent has no source of income whatsoever.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance.
8. Admittedly, the appellant is employed in the office of Dainik Bhaskar as Office Boy. As against disclosed income of Rs. 5,850/-, the appellant has given details of his own expenditure which comes to Rs. 8,040/-. It is noticed that the appellant has only averred that he is drawing basic salary of Rs. 5,850/- and has not furnished the details of the actual monthly salary including the permissible allowances drawn by him. It is not understandable that if the appellant is earning only Rs. 5,850/- then, how he is managing his own expenses of Rs. 8,040/- per month. It is true that the income of the appellant from various sources as pleaded was not established by any cogent evidence on record, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the Family Court regarding the income of the appellant and the order passed directing payment of meagre amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance pendente lite, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. The respondent is required to travel from Ratanpur, Aligarh (UP) to Kota for attending the date of hearing in the proceedings pending and thus, Rs. 1,000/- directed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent for each date of hearing also cannot be said to be excessive.
9. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent having any adequate source of income, on the facts and in the circum
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
stances of the case, the order impugned passed by the Family Court determining the amount of maintenance pendente lite and other expenses payable to the respondent does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 10. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant, shall not preclude the respondent from filing the appeal for enhancement of the maintenance, if so advised, or from pursuing the appeal, if any, already filed.