Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 335 of 2017 Appellant :- Akash Sharma Respondent :- Neeti Madan Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Bhaskar Bhadra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.2.2017, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby Rs. 5,000/- in lumpsum as cost of the litigation has been awarded to the wife.
The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, had been contested by the appellant husband on the premise that he was a less educated person and had earning of Rs. 150/- per day only, and on account of the threatening given by the wife, his employer had kicked him out of the job. He had no means of livelihood and cannot bear the expenses demanded by wife. On the other hand, the wife is a school teacher and is a government employee and earns good salary.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the wife has sufficient means to sustain herself and there was no occasion for the Family Court to award the cost of the proceedings. It was the obligation of the wife to contest the proceedings drawn before the Court.
Considering the said submissions, we may note the assertions of wife in her application filed in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was stated therein that the husband had sufficient source of income and had a house, which had been rented from which he was earning a handsome rental income. Apart from this, he is an educated person and was running his own business wherefrom, he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, whereas wife is 60% disabled and was pregnant at the time of the institution of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A copy of the application filed by the wife is appended as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the stay application in this appeal.
Considering the said material on record and noticing that the Family Court has not awarded monthly maintenance to wife on the premise that she is a government employee and has sufficient resources we find that the decision of the Family Court to award the cost of the proceedings in lumpsum that too Rs. 5,000/- only, cannot be said to be illegal or being beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 11 r/w Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been drawn by the husband. To contest the said proceedings, the wife had to bear some expenditures for seeking legal advice and filing papers to submit her claim. The wife has clearly stated in her application that she was pregnant and no reply to the same had been filed by the husband. Even if the wife was able to bear expenses to sustain herself, she cannot be asked to bear the additional expenditures of contesting the legal proceedings drawn by the husband. Even otherwise, Rs. 5,000/- awarded in lumpsum towards cost for the entire proceedings drawn by the husband, cannot be said to be excessive.
The appeal is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Shalini