RASHMI TIWARI Vs. SANJEEV TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taking exception to the order granting interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955"), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/wife questioning the quantum of maintenance granted to the extent of Rs. 11,000/- per month stating that the husband's income is more than Rs. 8 lacs per month, therefore, the quantum of interim maintenance be enhanced appropriately as per income of the respondent-husband by granting the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has stated the income of the respondent/husband to be more than Rs. 8 lacs per month, which the Family Court has ultimately recorded as Rs. 1,10,000/- per month, but only granted Rs. 11,000/- per month, which is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Dr.Kulbhushan Kumar v. Rai Kumari and another, 1970 3 SCC 129 and Kalvan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Devi Choudhery, 2017 14 SCC 200. He would further submit that pathology labs are being run by the respondent/husband in different places. He would also submit that a Division Bench of this Court in Anil Mishra v. Sakshi Mishra, 2017 AIR(Chh) 108. decided on 22.2.2017 has already held that against the order granting or rejecting application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, the writ petition would be maintainable and first appeal would not be maintainable, which is binding to this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Anis Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the writ petition as framed and filed would not be maintainable and first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1955 would lie. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shah Babulal Khimii v. Javaben D. Kania and another, 1981 AIR(SC) 1786, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Manish Aggarwal v. Seema Aggarwal and Ors,2013 ILR(Del) 210 the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in the matter of Rahul Samrat Tandon v. Smt.Neeru Tandon, 2010 AIR(Utr) 67, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Kavita Was v. Deepak Dave, 2018 AIR(Raj) 72, the judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of P.T. Lakshman Kumar v. Bhavani, 2013 3 CTC 166, the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Shailendra v. Smt. Deepika (W.P.No.6108/2017). decided on 18.5.2018 and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Smt. Pushpa alias Pooja alias Bhawna v. State of U.P., District Judge and Shiv Kumar Gautam, 2005 AIR(All) 187. He would further submit that the respondent has resigned from the hospital in which he was working, as such, income has not been established by the petitioner/wife.