SHEVATA CHOUDHARY Vs. NEERAJ CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 46/HM Act, titled, Shavata Choudhary vs Neeraj Choudhary, with a prayer for issuing a direction to the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of filing of the application under section 30 of Hindu Marriage Act before the trial court i.e. with effect from 20.12.2012.

(2.) Briefly stated, the present petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the maintenance was required to be granted from the date when the aforesaid application was filed and the learned trial court has wrongly awarded the same from the date of the decision. It is further stated in the petition that the deed of disinheritance was got executed just to deprive the petitioner of her rights, which were available to her under the Hindu Marriage Act and laws governing for grant of maintenance.

(3.) Response stands filed by the respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner herself claimed Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and the same has been granted to her by the learned trial court. Now the petitioner cannot seek maintenance at enhanced rate through the medium of the present petition. It is further stated that the petitioner filed the petition under section 30 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the trial court on 20.12.2012 and she deliberately delayed the proceedings of the case on one pretext or the other in order to frustrate the proceedings of the divorce and because of the delaying tactics of the petitioner, she was not entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. It is further stated that the litigating parties are private parties and not the State functionaries, so this petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that this Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view taken by the Tribunal or courts subordinate to it is a possible view. It is also stated that the petitioner has not stated in her application that she be granted maintenance from the date of filing of the application. It is further stated that the petitioner is getting maintenance from the respondent under section 488 Cr.P.C. and the said petition was finally disposed of on 22.12.2018 by virtue of which a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month has been granted to the petitioner and the minor from the date of order. On these grounds only, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.