The court established that financial independence negates the need for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

CM APPL. 30959/2023 (for condonation of delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Applicant/Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

3. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

MAT. APP. (F.C) NO.174/2023

4. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated 08.02.2023, [Impugned Order] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Family Court] in HMA No. 290/2021, titled as “Yashwani Verma v. Virender Verma & Anr.”, whereby the application filed by Appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, [Act ], seeking maintenance for herself, came to be dismissed.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

5. The facts germane leading up to the institution of the present Appeal are as follows:

I. The matrimonial alliance between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised on 22.03.1978 at 4, Cavalry Lines, The Mall, New Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and sacraments. Subsequently, two sons were born out of the said wedlock, namely Himavan Verma and Vikas Verma, born on 24.11.1980 and 11.05.1986, respectively.

II. The Appellant, aged more than 70 years, is a qualified individual, possessing significant academic qualifications. She was employed as a Senior Teacher at St. Xavier’s Senior Secondary School, New Delhi, and superannuated from service in July 2014. Prior to her retirement, she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.64,150/-, and is presently in receipt of a  pension of approximately Rs.2,000/- per month. It stands placed on record that the Appellant is residing with her two sons, both of whom are majors and gainfully employed.

III. The Respondent, aged around 73 years, was formerly employed with Reliance Communication, where he served until his retirement in the year 2017. It is stated that, owing to the financial collapse and insolvency of the said company, he was deprived of his retiral benefits, including pension and final settlement dues. The Respondent contends that he is unemployed, and is devoid of any independent source of income.

IV. The parties began residing separately in the year 1987, following a prolonged period marked by mutual discord. Subsequently, owing to continued differences, the Appellant and Respondent agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, and a joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Act was filed in the year 2003. However, the Appellant later withdrew her consent, and the proceedings did not culminate in a decree of divorce.

V. A perusal of the present Appeal suggests that the Appellant, aggrieved by the Respondent’s purported act of solemnizing a second marriage during the subsistence of their lawful matrimonial alliance, instituted a petition under Section 17 of the Act bearing HMA No. 290/2021 on 24.02.2021, seeking a declaration that the alleged subsequent marriage contracted by the Respondent is null and void ab initio, being in contravention of the statutory mandate against bigamy enshrined under the Act. The said petition remains pending adjudication before the Ld. Family Court.

VI. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the Appellant preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act, praying for interim maintenance in the quantum of Rs.60,000/- per month, and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.

VII. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.02.2023, the Family Court, dismissed the Appellant’s application under Section 24 of the Act, seeking int