Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 IN Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2019 Appellant :- Vishal Sharma Respondent :- Aparna Sharma Alias Sapna And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Sahu, Amit Gupta
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The application is accordingly allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 380 of 2019 Appellant :- Vishal Sharma Respondent :- Aparna Sharma Alias Sapna And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Sahu, Amit Gupta
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record.
2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") has arisen from judgement and order dated 09.05.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 653 of 2018, on an application under Sections 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") awarding interim maintenance to respondent-wife of Rs. 3,000/- per month, Rs. 3,000/- per month to her daughter and a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that earning of appellant is only Rs. 8,000/- per month and, therefore, aforesaid amount of interim maintenance is excessive and he will not be able to pay the same but Court below has observed that he has electric shop and it is his own admission that he has earned Rs. 7,000 to 8,000/- per month though no evidence has been placed before us to show that his total income is from shop and not otherwise.
4. Be that as it may, aforesaid amount awarded towards interim maintenance to respondent-wife and daughter cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the judgment and order impugned in this appeal.
5. No other point has been argued.
6. In view thereof, appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu