Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
The present first appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Family Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 89/2007 on an application 23 GA filed for grant of interim maintenance. The learned Family Judge had granted Rs. 2000/- per month as interim maintenance, Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- per day towards expenses for appearing in the Court.
We have heard Sri A.K. Rai holding brief of Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the defendant respondent and have perused the impugned order dated 14.10.2010 giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal as also the documents filed along with it.
Learned counsel submitted that the learned Family Judge had erred in law in holding that the evidence will be considered at the time of hearing of the petition and relying upon the statement given by the respondent, the claim of interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/- had been ordered. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the observation regarding consideration of evidence at the time of final hearing relates to the main petition and not to the application for evidence led for the disposal of the interim application for maintenance. The learned Family Judge while directing the payment of Rs. 2000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent had taken into consideration the plea of the appellant that he is unemployed graduate and suffering from arthritis. The learned Family Judge came to the conclusion that even if the appellant is unemployed, he got married, therefore, there must be some earning which has not come on record. At the earning of Rs. 4,500/- per month, the learned Family Judge had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month as interim maintenance. We do not find any illegality in the said order.
The appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 23.11.2010 AM/-