IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that maintenance must be adequate to meet the basic needs of the wife, reinforcing the husband's obligation to provide financial support.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Anup Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel representing the appellant and Shri Manjeet Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed by the wife/appellant, Shashi Pal, seeking enhancement of the quantum of maintenance inter alia on the grounds that merely Rs.1000/-has been granted by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family Court’) vide order dated 16.11.2022 in Original Suit No. 737 of 2017 filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

3. The factual matrix of the case at hand, which has been highlighted by the appellant, is that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 09.05.2006 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. In the said marriage, appellant’s father gave dowry including household goods as per his capacity to the respondent. Out of their wedlock, one child, namely, Sauryapal, was born on 03.08.2008. In the year 2008, the father of respondent/husband, who was working in the railway department, died, as a consequence of which, the respondent/ husband got appointment in the railway department on compassionate ground in the year 2008 itself. After getting job in the railway department, the respondent/husband became careless towards his marital life and on 26.06.2012, he solemnized a second marriage illegally with one Nilam Pal son of Gyan Prakash Pal, residence of Naya Mal Godam Road, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Pratapgarh and eventually the appellant was thrown out of her matrimonial home in September, 2017.

4. Based on the aforesaid facts/allegations, the wife/appellant instituted Original Suit No.737 of 2017 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 on 27.10.2017 before the Family Court, claiming half of the appellant’s salary towards maintenance. In the said suit, notice was issued to the defendant/husband. In response thereof, the defendant/husband filed his objection, denying all the allegations made in the plaint. It has been stated by the defendant/husband that plaintiff/ appellant herself left him (defendant/husband) and the children on 10.03.2005 and has started living at her father’s residence and since then, marital relationship has not been established between them. It has been stated in para-21 and 22 of the objection that it was only after husband’s sincere persuasion, the appellant got ready to dissolve the marriage subject to payment of Rs.15,00,000/-in one lump sum and also returning the stridhan to her. Thereafter, the husband/ respondent has returned stridhan to the appellant/wife and also handed over a Demand Draft No. 002398 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-to the wife/appellant on the date of institution of a suit under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was filed seeking Divorce on mutual consent, however, subsequently, the said suit filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed due to non-presence and non-participation of the wife/appellant.

5. The learned Counsel has drawn attention of this court towards the factum of the wife/appellant having instituted Case No. 240 of 2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. It has also been stated in para-27 of the objection by the husband/ respondent that the only child born out of the wedlock is in his custody and he is spending about Rs.10,000/-per month on his education, health and food. In para-28, it has been stated that the suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant is contrary to the object of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Furthermore, as the plaintiff/appellant herself has instituted a suit under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court seeking maintenance, the present suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ought to had been held non-maintainable and rejected.

6. On the contrary, in support of