Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri S.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
Present First Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no.2, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 1570/2019 (Dileep Kumar Gupta vs. Smt. Priti Gupta) under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby, he has partially allowed the application 11-C moved by the defendant-respondent under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as one time amount to meet out the litigation expenses and Rs.3,000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent wife by way of interim maintenance.
The facts in brief, as gathered from the record, are that the respondent-wife married the appellant on 08.12.2017 but thereafter their relations could not run smoothly. Consequently, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs.40,000/- for litigation expenses in lump sum to enable her to contest the said case and Rs.20,000/- for interim maintenance per month. The appellant-husband has filed his objection stating that his wife has deserted him of her own and has gone to live with her parents. Considering the above facts, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no.2, Kanpur Nagar has returned a finding that the respondent-wife has clearly stated that she has no income. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the income of the respondent-wife is Rs.30,000/- per month from the utensil shops of her brothers. It is further mentioned in the order that the looking to the present social and economic situation, the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar has estimated Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- as his monthly income. The respondent-wife is staying with her parents from where she has to attend the Court proceedings on each date. In this backdrop of the matter, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court no.2, Kanpur Nagar granted Rs.10,000/- lump sum to the respondent wife as litigation expenses and also Rs.3,000/- per month to be paid to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance.
The sole contention made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said amount is on the higher side and, therefore, the same may be reduced.
Section 24 of the Act makes a provision for maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings. It reads thus:-
"S.24.- Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be."
Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support, may apply to the Court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the Court may think reasonable, having regard to the applicant's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which the Section is couched indicates that a wide discretion has been conferred on the Court for grant of interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the Court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the Court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance is by its very nature temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the Court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors, which are mentioned in the statute.
In the case at hand, it is apparent that the respondent-wife has no source of income to enable her to contest this case. She needs to be awarded interim maintenance. It is also on record that she has to attend the Court proceedings on each date from her parent's house.
Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, the award of Rs.10,000/- as lump sum to meet out the litigation expenses and Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance are reasonable amount. In our opinion, the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and hence requires no interference.
The First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.2.2021 A. Pandey