SUKHENDRA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-husband challenges the order passed by the Family Court, Allahabad, dated 2.9.1999, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, in Case No. 101 of 1997, Sukhendra Prasad Mishra v. Mamta Devi.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-husband had filed a petition for divorce, which was numbered as Case No. 101 of 1997, against the contesting respondent Mamta Devi before the Family Court, Allahabad, on 17th March, 1997. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, the contesting respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming an amount of Rs. 8,000 as the cost for contesting the aforesaid case and Rs. 2,500 per month as an interim maintenance. It Is this application, which has been decided by the family court vide order dated 2.9.1999, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, namely, husband and wife thereby family court allowed the application directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 600 towards the expenses to contest the proceedings in lump-sum and 1.200 per month as an Interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order has placed reliance on different affidavits exchanged ^between the parties before the family court and tried to submit that the findings arrived at by the family court with regard to the payment aforesaid is wholly arbitrary. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is relevant to decide the present controversy, is reproduced as below :