Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 673 of 2019 Appellant :- Meena Sharma Respondent :- Raghvendra Bhardwaj Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.
2. This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") arisen from judgment and order dated 29.05.2019 passed by Sri Sajesh Narain Mani Tripathi, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 4, Aligarh, rejecting appellant's application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") in Divorce Petition No. 556 of 2017 claiming interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month.
3. Court below has found that pursuant to an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. respondent-husband was already paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to appellant. Further, there was another order passed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for payment of Rs. 4000/- per month, which was stayed by this Court in an appeal preferred by husband vide order dated 23.08.2018. However, Rs. 5000/- per month was continuously being paid by husband to appellant but record shows that aforesaid amount remained deposited in appellant's account and was never withdrawn by wife for meeting her expenses, whereupon an inference has been drawn by Court below that appellant does not require any amount additionally and she has her own source of income. This finding that amount paid by husband regularly, pursuant to order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has remained deposited with Bank and not utilized is now show incorrect.
4. It is in these circumstances Court below has inferred that appellant has an independent source of income and an order for interim maintenance under Section 24 is not justified.
5. The aforesaid finding of Court below that amount of maintenance being received by appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has remained unspent and remained in deposit in bank account of appellant, has neither been challenged in this appeal nor there is any document or material to show that it is perverse or contrary to material on record. No other point has been argued.
6. Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 AK