w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vikas Bhuria v/s Kanchan Kumari


Company & Directors' Information:- KANCHAN INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17123RJ1996PLC012173

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73100DL2012PTC232875

Company & Directors' Information:- VIKAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1949PTC007334

Company & Directors' Information:- THE VIKAS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231UP1934PLC000592

    CMPMO No. 49 of 2020

    Decided On, 07 January 2020

    At, High Court of Himachal Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

    For the Appearing Parties: Nimish Gupta, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 20.03.2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, in CMA No.34-P/VI/2019, titled as Kanchan Kumari Versus Vikas Bhuria, whereby, application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent herein for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses has been allowed by learned Court below in the following terms:-"7 In the instant case, the marriage between the applicant/respondent and petitioner/respondent and the fact that they are the legally wedded husband and wife, is not disputed. There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant is having any property in her name, which is sufficient to maintain herself. Both the parties have made rival allegations against each other regarding the income, however, none has placed on record any documentary proof to prove their respective income, but, at this stage, one thing is clear that the respondent is an able bodied person and as such, his capacity to earn being labourer is a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and being husband of the applicant, is legally bond to maintain her wife i.e. the applicant.8. As a result of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to grant maintenance pendentelite to the applicant/respondent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of this application up till the disposal of the divorce petition. The applicant is also granted litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed off. It be tagged with the main petition."2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while granting maintenance pendente lite in favour of the wife, learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the petitioner is not in a position to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife as also litigation expenses which have been assessed at Rs.7000/- per month.3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view this petition deserves dismissal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for a decree of divorce against the respondent herein. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act entitles the wife to move an appropriate application seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Learned Court below while allowing such application filed before it by the present respondent, has only ordered a meager amount of Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance allowance as from the date of filing of the application, till decision of the divorce petition. In addition, it has also granted litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/- per month. The amount which has been so fixed by the learned Court below as maintenance pendente lite, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be on the higher side or an excessive amount. In fact, in case, the Court issues a notice in this petition to the respondent herein, she will be unnecessarily dragged to the High Court for defending the order vide which only an amount of Rs.1500/- per month has been granted to her as maintenance pendente lite.4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in another proceedings, which have been initiated by the respondent herein against the petitioner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court has ordered payment of an amount of Rs.7000/- per month to the respondent herein as well as the minor child and Rs.3000/-per month as rent for alternative accommodation. He further informs the Court that this order, otherwise assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.5. Be that as it may, while deciding this petition, this Court is not to be influenced by the decision, which has been made by the appropriate Court in the proceedings, which stand initiated against present petitioner by respondent herein under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is reiterated that as the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has to be defended by the respondent herein before the appropriate Court of law, therefore, the respondent is bound to pay to the petitioner litigation expenses as well as maintenance allowance as is envisaged under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further reiterated that amount of Rs.1500/- per month which has been granted by the learned Court below in favour of the respondent herein, cannot be said to be excessive and the same, thus, calls for no interference. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that wh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ile passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard or due opportunity to put forth his case was not granted by the learned Court below. Therefore also, in exercise of its power of superintendence, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the order so passed by the learned Court below.6. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
O R