AJAY BANSAL Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order dtd. 18/8/2022 passed by learned District Judge, Sagar in RCSHM No.148/21 awarding a sum of Rs.3,000.00 per month as a maintenance and one time litigation charges of Rs.4,000.00 on the ground that despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.10, Sagar on 31/1/2020 whereby respondent non-applicant was directed to cause restitution of conjugal rights within two months of passing of the order since order has not been complied with by the non-applicant, therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Smt. Kiran Vs. Chandra Shekar, AIR 1998 MADHYA PRADESH 69, wherein it is held that grant of maintenance pendente lite is a discretionary power of Court. Refusal to grant maintenance on ground that decree of restitution of conjugal rights is operating against wife is proper.

(2.) Shri Shyam Yadav, in his turn, submits that there is a proper reason for not joining company of the husband, inasmuch as, non-applicant is being subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment in the hands of the husband, therefore, she cannot be deprived of the amount of maintenance under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record so also the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Smt. Kiran (supra) wherein it is held that Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act uses the expression 'the Court may' and once the discretion is exercised by the trial Court then that discretion may not be interfered with.

(3.) There is another judgment of this Court in Balakram Vs. Smt. Durgabai and Others, 2007 (1) MPWN 10, wherein it is held that if wife does not join company of husband despite of decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her then she is not entitled to claim maintenance. After considering the aforesaid two judgments and the language employed in Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is evident that the language is "where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable"