LAWS(RAJ)-2020-3-34

CHANDRAVEER SINGH Vs. ANITA

Decided On March 03, 2020
CHANDRAVEER SINGH Appellant
V/S
ANITA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 10.12.18 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh in Family Misc. Case No.14/18, whereby an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been allowed and the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. That apart, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.720/- to the respondent towards the expenses to attend the each date of hearing.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition against the respondent seeking divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and her minor son. That apart, the respondent claimed litigation expenses a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum and Rs.1,000/- towards the expenses for attending the each date of hearing. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income, whereas the appellant is employed in Vodafone Cellular Company on a respectable post and also earning from irrigated agriculture land. The income of the appellant was disclosed as Rs.10,00,000/- per annum.

(3.) The appellant contested the application by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that he is working as labourer in the town Pratapgarh and do not possess any land/immovable property. The appellant claimed that the respondent is earning Rs.20,000-25,000 per month while working as private teacher in Ratlam City. The appellant submitted that he is already paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and Rs.8,000/- towards the maintenance for his minor child Shivendra Singh pursuant to the order passed by the Family Court, Ratlam and therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any further maintenance.