Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 56 of 2019 Appellant :- Uttam Singh Respondent :- Abha Singh Counsel for Appellant :- B.S. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Virendra Singh Chauhan,Akhilesh Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ravish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Sri Ravish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-wife is present.
The appeal is directed against an order dated 10.04.2017 whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decided in favour of the respondent- wife. A petty amount of Rs.800/- per month has been awarded to the respondent-wife for which she has been dragged in the present appeal. In addition to the same, only Rs.1000/- for filing the written statement in lump sum had been awarded as cost of the proceedings.
The appellant in his affidavit has admitted that his monthly salary is Rs.14,592/-, though, he has stated that the salary of the wife is much more than his income. However, no evidence has been brought on record in the nature of salary slip or any other material to substantiate the said submissions. It is, therefore, not possible for the court to accept the bald statement of the appellant regarding his earning being less than his wife.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-wife had mislead the Court in getting monthly maintenance, therefore, is found false.
We may further note that at the time of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. on 18.01.2016, the respondent-wife was not doing any job. She had got a job only in the year 2017 during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-wife had concealed the factum of her employment. The claim of the wife on the date of the application was to be determined.
The respondent-wife, however, is living separately from her husband since the year 2013 and the divorce suit had been filed in the year 2014. It is, thus, evident that the appellant's wife had left her matrimonial home since the year 2013 and remained dependent on her other family members.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the family court in fixing monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.800/- per month, only.
The appeal is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Siddhant