RAJIV KUMAR MODI, SON OF ANANT LAL MODI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA: ASHRAM ROAD, BISUNPUR, C.V.C. CHOWK, WARD NO. 1, JHUMARI TILAIYA MUNICIPALITY, P.O.: JHUMRI TILAIYA, P.S. TILAIYA, DISTRICT: KODERMA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘petitioner'), being aggrieved of the order dated 26th Feb., 2014, passed in M.T.S. No. 28/2012 whereby he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 15,000.00 as litigation expenses on an application moved by respondent-wife under Sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, knocked the doors of Writ Court through the medium of W.P(C) No. 2447 of 2014, taking the plea that he has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that his wife had never cohabited with him and she was in-fact pregnant before the marriage was solemnized. The said writ petition now stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.08.2015 handed down by learned Single Judge, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal which is at admission stage.

(2.) Heard Mr. Burnwal S. Lall, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ramawatar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife. We have also gone through the impugned order and the other documents available on the memo of appeal.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel contended that in the impugned order, there is no whisper about the income of the respondent-wife and it appears that hurriedly the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Writ Court without taking into account all the aspects especially the most vital issue that if the marriage is void under Sec. 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, question of making any payment as maintenance or litigation expenses does not arise. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that in-fact the petitioner is dependent upon his parents and is not earning anything, therefore, not in a position to maintain the respondent-wife at all.