JITENDRA KUMAR SONI Vs. RANJEETA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-2010, passed by District Judge Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), the appellant has approached this court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant husband and respondent wife were married on 30-3-2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. Till 2007, no differences had arisen between the two. However, according to the wife, from 2007 she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for dowry demands. Unable to bear the torture meted out to her, she lodged a FIR for the offence under section 498-A IPC against the appellant. Ever since then, she has been residing at her parental place. Initially the appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. However, vide order dated 15-4-2009, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant has filed a divorce petition against the respondent under section 13 of the Act. During pendency of the divorce proceedings, the respondent filed an application under section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/- each to respondent, and to her son, Vaibhav. The amount of maintenance was to be paid from 5-1-2010. Since the order was passed on 25-3- 2010, the arrears of two months were directed to be paid immediately; it was also directed that the maintenance amount shall be paid by the appellant by 6 th day of each month. He further directed that Rs.5000/- shall be paid as a lump sum expenses for the proceedings. Hence, this appeal before this court.

(3.) Mr. R.D.S. Naruka, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that in her application the respondent did not seek any maintenance, and she merely sought Rs.300/- on each date for appearing before the court. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in granting Rs.5000/- per month with effect from 5-1-2010. Secondly, since the appellant is to maintain his aged parents, and two unmarried sisters, the maintenance of Rs.5000/- is too burdensome. Therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced.