Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
The facts in brief, are that an application was filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "Act, 1955"), registered as Original Suit No.1202 of 2012 (Badri Vishal Pandey Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi), in which the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Principle Judge, Family Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Court No.37, Barabanki, passed the order dated 11.04.2019, under appeal, on the application moved by the respondent under Section 24 of Act, 1955. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is quoted hereinunder:-
Þi=koyh voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izLrqr okn vUrxZr /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e oSokfgd laca/kksa dh iquLFkkZiuk dk oknh }kjk izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk izdj.k esa izfrokfnuh dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksuk iM+ jgk gSA mijksDr mn/k`r nksuksa oknks esa vHkh rd varfje Hkj.k iks"k.k dk funsZ'k ugha fn;k x;k gSA mijksDr nksuksa i=kofy;ka lu~ 2012 ls yafcr gSa rFkk vHkh lk{; ds Lrj ij gSaA fuf'pr :i ls brus yEcs le; ls izdj.k ds pyus esa izfrokfnuh dks dkQh O;; djuk iM+ jgk gS rFkk izkfFkZuh viuk o vius ukckfyx iq= ds Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq la?k"kZjr gS rFkk vHkh lk{; dh dk;Zokgh esa le; yxus dh laHkkouk gS bl Lrj ij vkosfndk dks varfje Hkj.k iks"k.k ds ykHk ls oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA Lohd`r :i ls vkosfndk oknh dh iRuh gS bl rF; ls oknh dks badkj ugha gSA oknh us etnwjh ds ek/;e ls viuk thfodksiktZu djuk crk;k gSA fuf'pr :i ls vkosfndk oknh dh iRuh gS ftldk dksbZ fu;fer vk; dk lzks= ugha gSA Hkj.k iks"k.k nsus dk fof/kd nkf;Ro [email protected] ij gSA vkosfndk }kjk foi{kh ds vk; ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh fuf'pk;d lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS A Lo;a oknh }kjk etnwjh djds thou;kiu djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa U;k;ky; dh jk; esa fuf'pr :i ls ,d lkekU; Je'khy O;fdr vius m|e ls 10][email protected]& :i;s izfrekg vk; vftZr dj ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa 10][email protected]& :i;s izfrekg dh vk; vkadfyr dj vUrfje Hkj.k&iks"k.k ls nkf;Rok/khu Bgjk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA rn~uqlkj vUrfje Hkj.k iks"k.k Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vkossfndk dk vUrfje Hkj.k&iks"k.k izkFkZuk i= d&24 vUrxZr /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA oknh cnzhfo'kky ik.Ms; dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ewyokn la[;k [email protected] ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku vkosfndk Jhefr xk;=h nsoh dks 2][email protected]& :i;s ¼nks gtkj :i;s ½ izfrekg dh nj ls vkns'k dh frfFk ls vUrfje Hkj.k&iks"k.k iznku djsA mijksDr vUrfje Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k izR;sd ekg dh lkr rkjh[k rd ns; gksxhA O;frdze dh voLFkk esa vkosfndk tfj;s U;k;ky; mDr /kujkf'k olwy ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksaxhA i=koyh okLrs foi{kh lk{; fnukad 20-04-2019 dks is'k gksAß We have heard the parties and gone through the records. We are of the considered opinion that the findings, which have been given by the Trial Court for awarding maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month to the respondent, are perfectly legal and valid.
As such, we do not find any good ground or reason to interfere in the matter in question.
Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit, and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Vinay/-