Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 301 of 2019 Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Paliwal Respondent :- Raka Alias Rajni Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Connected with-
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 287 of 2019 Appellant :- Raka @ Rajni Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Paliwal Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Anita Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mukesh Kumar
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Both the appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 arising out of the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.50,000/- per month while the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be adjusted in the said amount.
First Appeal No.301 of 2019 has been filed by the husband-appellant assailing the order dated 7.1.2019, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad granting the said amount, while First Appeal No. 287 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent-wife assailing the order dated 7.1.2019 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad had directed that the amount awarded as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was to be adjusted towards the payment of maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.50,000/- per month.
Both the appeals were tagged by order dated 15.4.2019 and both the parties were directed on 15.5.2019 to appear before this Court on 29.5.2019.
Both the appellant and the respondent are present today and we have interacted with them in Chamber. We have also heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The appellant was married to opposite party on 11.3.1992 according to Hindu rites and customs at Farrukhabad. Out of the said wed lock a daughter Ayushi was born on 26.9.1993. As matrimonial dispute arose between the parties, the appellant left the respondent and his daughter, who at present are living at Farrukhabad. A Matrimonial Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chattisgarh for dissolution of marriage. The said matrimonial case has been transferred from District Sarguja, Chattisgarh to District Farrukhabad, U.P. by order of the Apex Court.
During the pendency of the said matrimonial case, the opposite party filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Court allowed maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by opposite party for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It was averred in the said application that the appellant was working as Assistant Teacher in Raj Mohini Devi Agricultural College and Research Centre, Ajirama, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chattisgarh. The said application was contested by the appellant who filed his objection. The Court below by order dated 7.1.2019 after considering the application and objections of the parties granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.50,000/- per month to the opposite party and further directed that the amount granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was to be adjusted in the said amount.
While interacting with the appellant in Chamber, he fairly admitted the fact that he was getting salary @ Rs.1,76,772/- per month and after deduction he was receiving about Rs.1,22,000/-. He further stated that his father was a heart patient and certain money was being spent on his treatment and as such the amount awarded by the Court below was on the higher side. We also interacted with the opposite party, who stated that she was living all alone at Farrukhabad and has no means of livelihood as her parents have already passed away and her daughter was working in a Company at Gurgaon and was not supporting her.
We find that the appellant is an employee in a Government College and is getting a handsome salary and the amount awarded as maintenance pendente lite by the Court below is not on the higher side considering the status of the family. As such the order dated 7.1.2019 needs no interference.
Thus, both the appeals are dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 / A.N. Mishra