HIMANSHU SHARMA Vs. MANJULA SHARMA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 25.06.2009 disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter for short referred to as Act ) filed by the wiferespondent in the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Act by the husband-petitioner herein, whereby an interim maintenance has been awarded to the wife-respondent and her two sons Deepanshu Sharma (major) and Swarnam (minor) @ Rs. 4,000/- per month for each alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Avnish Pawar Vs. Sunita Pawar, 2000 2 MPLJ 628 (vide Annexure P/6) contends that Deepanshu being the major son of the rival parties could not have been awarded interim maintenance and also that the trial Court has not rendered any findings as to whether the wife/defendant/respondent herein has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings , thereby rendering the impugned order de hors the statutory provisions of Section 24 of the Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for wife-respondent contends that the impugned order is legal and valid for having been passed after complying with all the statutory requirements prescribed by Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for wife/defendant/respondent that the husband/plaintiff/petitioner is morally responsible to maintain his wife and children, which he has failed to do thereby compelling the wife and the two sons to seek maintenance pendente lite. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases of Rita Dutta & Another Vs. Subhendu Dutta, 2005 6 SCC 619 and Anu Kaul Vs. Rajeev Kaul, 2009 13 SCC 209.