ASHIM GHOSH Vs. SEEMA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 455/2012, the Petitioner Husband prayed for setting aside the order dated 03012012 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family court, Ranchi in M.T.S No.19/2011 whereby & whereunder the learned Family Court has granted an ad interim maintenance of Rs.7000/ to the Respondent Wife U/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the other Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 3390/2012 the PetitionerWife prayed for enhancement of the ad interim maintenance granted by the order dated 03012012 in M.T.S No. 19 of 2011.

(2.) Since, the petitioner in both the petitions have challenged the order dated 3 rd January, 2012 passed by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in M.T.S. No. 19 of 2011, it would be just and proper for this Court to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common judgment. In a petition being W.P. (C) No. 455 of 2012, the petitioner Husband has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that amount of interim maintenance fixed by the court below is excessive and the same has been without taking into consideration the independent income of the petitionerHusband, whereas, in a petition being W.P. (C) No. 3390 of 2012, the petitionerWife has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that the amount of interim maintenance fixed by the court below is not adequate, looking to the responsibility of maintaining herself as well as minor son and, therefore, she has prayed for enhancement of the interim maintenance so fixed by the court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner Husband has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned court below has not properly considered the provision of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, while passing the impugned order and thereby committed an error in fixing the amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/ to the RespondentWife. In support of his contention learned counsel for the PetitionerHusband submitted that the interim maintenance can be granted on the basis of the independent income of the husband but the learned court below has taken into consideration the fact that the PetitionerHusband is proprietor of firm namely "Safety First" at Jamshedpur. However without proper justification and proof by documentary evidences, the court below has passed an order of interim maintenance, which is contrary to section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore the said order is required to be quashed and set aside.