AO/230/2018 of Ankit Kumar Jain Vs Smt. Sonam Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALAppeal from Order No. 230 of 2018

Ankit Kumar Jain

Smt. Sonam Jain

Versus

… Appellant

…Respondent

Present: Mr. B. S. Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGEMENT

Coram:- Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

1.The instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 01.05.2016, passed in Original Suit No. 329 of 2017 Ankit Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Sonam Jain, by the Court of Learned Family Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”).By the impugned order, an application for maintenance pendente lite filed by the respondent was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.7,000/- towards the expenses of the proceedings.

2.The appellant filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and based on it, the suit was instituted. During the pendency of the suit, an application for maintenance pendente lite as well as expenses of the proceedings, under Section 24 of the Act, has been filed. Objections were filed by the respondent and after hearing

the parties by the impugned order the application was decided. Aggrieved by it, the instant appeal is preferred.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant is bank employee and his parents are also dependent upon him, therefore, the amount for maintenance pendente lite is on higher side, which may be reduced.

4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that as per the admitted submissions of the appellant, his salary is Rs. 46,000/- per month and respondent has no source of earning. Therefore, the amount which has been awarded to the respondent as maintenance pendente liteis adequate and reasonable and no interference should be made in the impugned order.

5.Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after deduction, the salary of the appellant is Rs. 34,248/- and there is no evidence on record which may reveal that the respondent is earning by any means. Keeping in view the financial status of the appellant and his liabilities, this court is of the view that maintenance pendente lite of Rs.10,000/- per month is, in fact, reasonable and adequate. There is no reason to make any interference in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.The appeal is dismissed.

Pant

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.)

23.07.2019