SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Wednesday, December 01, 2021

Printed For: Satya Narain
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3057/2019

Ajay Mittal v. Sonu Goyal

2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2403

In the High Court of Rajasthan†

(BEFORE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ AND NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, JJ.)

Ajay Mittal .…. Appellant;

v.
Sonu Goyal .…. Respondent.
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3057/2019
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2569/2019
Decided on August 22, 2019
Advocate who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Raunak Dixit
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant-husband aggrieved by order of the
Family Court No. 3, Jaipur, dated 20.05.2019, by which the Family Court has allowed
the application of the respondent-wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and granted her a sum of Rs. 7000/- as monthly maintenance pendente lite.
2. The respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
3. Mr. Raunak Dixit, learned counsel for appellant-husband, submitted that the
Family Court has mechanically granted the amount of monthly maintenance to the
tune of Rs. 7000/-. The order passed by the Family Court is against the settled
principle of law. The Family Court failed to appreciate the respondent-wife herself is
graduate and also having degree of B.Ed. And she is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month
by teaching work. The appellant-husband is earning only a sum of Rs. 6000/- per
month, which is very low as compared to the income of the respondent-wife, by
working with a hotel. The respondent-wife therefore does not deserve to be granted
any maintenance. The Family Court has construed the word ‘support’ in Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a very narrow manner. When the appellant-husband
himself does not have sufficient means of income, how possibly he can maintain the
respondent-wife. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on a
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal -
2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 588, wherein it has been held that well qualified spouses
desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of
livelihood, have to be discouraged and that the spouses who are quarreling and
coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the
purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of Delhi High Court in Nisha Jain v. Amit Jain dated 24.08.2016 in
Matrimonial Application (F.C.) 106/2015, wherein it has been held that provision of
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been enacted to enable the husband
or the wife, as the case may be, who has not independent source of income for his or
her support and to incur necessary expenses to contest the litigation, can claim
maintenance pendente lite so that proceedings may be continued without any
hardship on his/her part.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Wednesday, December 01, 2021
Printed For: Satya Narain
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband and perused the
impugned order, we find that the respondent-wife has alleged that the appellant-
husband is having the income approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month from his Golden
Crush Restaurant. Apart from that, he also runs a business of catering. He maintains a
Honda City car. The respondent-wife demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards
monthly maintenance. The appellant husband before the Family Court set up a case
that he does not have anything to do with the Golden Crush Restaurant. He hardly
earns a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month and that the respondent-wife is a qualified
teacher having passed out B.Ed. Course and is earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per
month. The appellant-husband also maintained that he has already sold out the Honda
City car.
5. The Family Court from the rival submissions of the parties found that though the
appellant-husband has failed to prove the income of the respondent-wife but the fact
that the appellant-husband was maintaining a car, denotes that he has a particular
standard in the society and even if the car has been sold, his standard would be such
and he is under obligation to maintain his wife at-least by payment of a meager sum
of Rs. 7000/- per month.
6. The Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha - (2014) 16 SCC 715
has held that merely because wife was earning something, would not be a ground to
reject her claim for maintenance particularly when her earnings were not placed on
record. In this view of the matter, it is clear that even if wife earns certain amount,
that does not absolve the husband of his liability to maintain her in the meaning of
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
———
†
Jaipur Bench
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.