Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 905 of 2019 Appellant :- Ram Pratap Respondent :- Laxmi Devi @ Guddi Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Narain Singh,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel for appellant.
2. This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1984") arising from judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Rachna Arora, Principal Judge Family Court, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2018 (Smt. Lakshmi Devi Vs. Ram Pratap) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1955') filed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 867 of 2018 (Ram Pratap Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi) under Section 13 of Act, 1955 whereby Court below has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month, lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 150/- towards convenience etc. for every date, attended by respondent-wife in above mentioned marriage petition during pendency of above mentioned Matrimonial Petition before Court below.
3. Learned counsel for appellant in challenge to impugned order dated 23.10.2019, contends that amount awarded by Court below is excessive. However, he could not dispute that appellant has retired from service from the post of Subedar in Indian Army. His salary was about Rs. 50,000/- per month. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below is excessive. Admittedly, appellant has solemnized marriage with respondent-wife. As such, respondent is legally wedded wife of appellant, Consequently, responsibility is upon appellant himself to maintain his wife. It is for the aforesaid purpose that Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 4.000/- per month. Amount of maintenance so awarded by Court below cannot be said to be excessive, unjust or illegal in any manner. On the contrary, we find that it is extremely considerate and warrants no interference.
5. We, therefore, find no apparent error in the order passed by court below so as to interfere in this appeal which has been filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
6. The appeal lacks merits. Dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 YK