DURGA PRASAD RAY Vs. MEENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by ld. Judge- Family Courts in H.M.A. No.87/2010 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses @ Rs. 15,000/- were awarded to the respondent while disposing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as 'Act') filed by the respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.11.1999 at Delhi and a girl and a boy were born from the wedlock. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. Consequently the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is working as Chief Medical Officer at Hindu Rao Hospital and it was his responsibility to maintain his wife and female child who resides with her, the ld. Judge passed the impugned order granting maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent.

(2.) The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is working as senior nurse at G.B. Pant Hospital and is earning reasonable salary and can maintain herself and the female child residing with her, while the petitioner is maintaining his parents as well as the male child who is in his custody. It has been submitted that the ld. Trial Court has wrongfully concluded that the petitioner is a person of high status and has awarded exorbitant amount of maintenance to the respondent against the spirit of Section 24 of the Act.

(3.) In Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, 2010 AIR(SC) 3540, deliberating on the issue of interim maintenance during pendency of litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that,