LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-88

BIJOI CHHETRI Vs. SUNITA CHHETRI & ANOTHER

Decided On June 12, 2017
Bijoi Chhetri Appellant
V/S
Sunita Chhetri And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the husband, who is a defendant in the proceedings under Section 13 r/w Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the order under challenge in appeal dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Family Court, Dehradun in Suit No.45 of 2013, "Mrs. Sunita Chhetri vs. Mr. Bijoi Chehetri."

(2.) The learned Family Court, while exercising powers under Section 24 had partly allowed the application of the plaintiff/respondent whereby has awarded a pendente lite maintenance for the plaintiff (wife) and minor son (Aayusman) a sum of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses, hence the appeal by the husband.

(3.) During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13 filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of marriage said to have been solemnized on 29.03.2009, at Dehradun, on the ground that the matrimony between the parties to the Suit No.45 of 2011, was a consequence of concealment and distortion of facts about the age and qualification of husband, however, the controversy therein is not relevant at present juncture as the appeal from order is confined to the order of maintenance under Section 24, while the principal proceedings under Section 13 was pending, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Section 24 contending that looking to the pathetic financial condition of hers, she is unable to maintain herself and her son (Aayusman) and as such she has claimed for a grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground taken was that being the father, the defendant/appellant herein was liable to maintain his son as well as the wife for which she contended that the appellant-husband is working in Kuwait and has an earning of Rs.1,50,000/- per month, as such she has claimed a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself, Rs.25,000/- for her son and Rs.50,000/- for the litigation expenses. She contended that because of there being no source of earning, she and her family consisting of her only son is on the verge of starvation.