JUDGMENT :

The C.M.P. is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The present C.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-5 to the present petition) passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 05/2013, whereby an application filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent with effect from November, 2020 till disposal of the said matrimonial suit and has further been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- in cash on each date of proceeding of the said suit as the cost of proceeding till disposal of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 26.06.2000 according to the Hindu rights and customs at Bagbera, Jamshedpur. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife at petitioner?s paternal home situated at Murhu, Khunti. On 14.01.2001, first daughter was born from the said wedlock. Thereafter, second daughter was born in April, 2003 and a son was born in the month of July, 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner was being subjected to torture by the respondent in different ways and despite his best efforts to maintain good matrimonial relationship with the respondent, he could not succeed. The respondent also started staying separately from the petitioner due to which there was no physical relationship between them since June, 2010. Under the said situation, the petitioner filed Matrimonial Title Suit No. 05/2013 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, which was subsequently transferred to the court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti. On issuance of notice, the respondent appeared in the said matrimonial suit and also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance pendente lite and expense of the proceeding from the petitioner. The said application was disposed of by the learned court below vide order dated 06.04.2021 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent either in cash or through electronic mode on or before 10th day of every month of English calendar with effect from November 2020 till disposal of the said suit. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- in cash on each date of proceeding till disposal of the said suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 06.04.2021 submits that the aforesaid amount ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent is quite excessive and the petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay the same. He has also to take care of his old mother and son who are staying with him. Moreover, he has also to pay back loan for the truck purchased by him.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the content of the CMP. On perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2021, it appears that the learned court below has considered the fact that the respondent is a legally married wife of the petitioner and admittedly, there are three children (two daughters and one son) from the said wedlock, who all are residing with their mother. It has also been observed that the respondent has no independent source of income so as to support her and three children. Moreover, since the petitioner is the owner of a truck, he has sufficient source of income to maintain the respondent as well as the children.

5. Even if the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that among the three children, the son is staying with him and he is also taking care of his mother is accepted, the fact remains that the respondent does not have any independent source of income who has not only to maintain herself but also to maintain two daughters.

6. The financial difficulties of the husband cannot be a ground to avoid payment of interim mainten