JITENDRA KUMAR SONI Vs. RANJITA SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter comes up on an application No. 15317 dt. 07.05.2012 filed by the respondent -applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955'). The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a divorce petition under Sec. 13 of the Act of 1955 against the applicant before the District Judge, Sikar. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the applicant submitted an application under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1955 for pendente lite expenses and maintenance. The application was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay to the applicant maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - per month. The divorce petition before the District Judge, Sikar however failed and has entailed an appeal under Sec. 28 of the Act of 1955 before this Court.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant also moved an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for her maintenance and also of her minor son Vaibhav. The said application was allowed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar vide order dt. 8.5.2012 and it was directed that a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - p.m be paid to the applicant and additionally a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - p.m. be also paid to her son Vaibhav (aggregating to Rs. 5,000/ - p.m.) as interim maintenance. It appears that subsequently vide order dt. 5.1.2013 the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on an application directed that the amount of maintenance to the applicant be enhanced to Rs. 4,000/ - p.m. and further an amount of Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. be paid for the maintenance of the minor son Vaibhav. The order dt. 5.1.2013 was challenged by way of a revision by the applicant before the District Judge, Sikar. The revision is still pending.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the appellant is working as a constable in the Government Railway Protection Force and earns a gross salary of over Rs. 25,000/ - p.m. There is no credible proof with regard to the applicant earning any amount even though it is alleged that she is adequately qualified. The minor son Vaibhav, born from the wedlock of the appellant and the applicant, is also living with the applicant.