Despite receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a party may still be entitled to additional maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 based on their financial situation.

ORDER

1. By this appeal a challenge has been made to the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hindaun City, Karauli (for short 'the learned Court below') by which the application filed by the appellant-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') has been disposed of by the learned Court below by observing that the wife is getting maintenance of Rs.6500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. So, there is no need to pass any further order for granting maintenance to her. However, a lump sum amount of Rs.4000/- has been awarded as expenses towards litigation.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 17.06.2009. The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, against the appellant before the Court below on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and expenses from the respondent pleading that the respondent is a Government Lecturer and is getting salary of Rs.85,000/- per month. So, she requested for granting of maintenance of Rs.24,000/- per month to her.

3. Respondent opposed the application pleading that the appellant is quite competent to maintain herself and under the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she is already getting maintenance of Rs.6500/- per month.

4. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Court below decided the application vide impugned order dated 17.02.2020 by observing that since the appellant is already getting maintenance of Rs.6500/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., hence, no separate order for grant of maintenance is required to be passed. However, the application was disposed of by directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as cost towards litigation.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The respondent has not disputed that he is a Government Lecturer. The only disputed question of fact is that the salary of respondent, as per the contention of the appellant is Rs.85,000/- per month, while as per the contention of the respondent counsel, the monthly salary of respondent is Rs.40,000/- per month.

7. Be as it may, looking to the financial status of the family of the parties and the present conditions where even survival of the appellant in such a meagre amount of Rs.6500/- is very difficult.

8. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to award maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from the date of this order.

9. Consequently, this misc. appeal filed by the appellant-wife succeeds and while allowing the appeal, I direct the respondent- husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 from the date of this order. However the amount of maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adjusted towards the amount of maintenance payable to the appellant-wife.

10. No order as to cost.

11. Since the divorce petition is pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hindaun City, Karauli since 09.05.2018, the learned Court below is expected to expedite the trial of the divorce petition and decide the divorce petition within a period of 12 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

12. All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.