Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Laljee Kuswaha —Petitioner
versus
Smt. Ranju Devi —Respondent
W.P. (C ) No. 352 of 2012
Decided on 20.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Akshay Kumar Mahto, Advocate.
Headnote:Special Marriage Act, 1954—Sections 22, 36—Petition filed by petitioner husband against wife for restitution of conjugal rights—On receipt of notice, wife filed an application claiming pendente lite maintenance and cost of suit—Order passed by Court granting Rs. 4,000 p.m. as maintenance pendente lite—Award of interim maintenance of Rs.1,000 to claimant and Rs.1,000 to her son under Domestic Violence Act in Allahabad—When said fact was brought to notice of family Court, Jamshedpur, an order was passed to stay payment of maintenance awarded under Domestic Violence Act—Even though wife concealed said fact that by itself was not sufficient to disentitle the wife and minor son from receiving any maintenance—It was the bounden duty of husband to maintain his wife and son—No error committed by Court in granting interim maintenance during pendency of matrimonial suit—Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 5 to 8)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.— Heard learned counsel appealing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party.
2. A petition under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act was preferred by the petitioner against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. On receipt of notice wife preferred an application under Section 36 of the aforesaid Act claiming pendente lite maintenance and the cost of the suit. The Court by means of the impugned order awarded Rs.4,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite.
3. The submission of the learned counsel is that she claimed maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act in Allahabad where she is residing and by means of Annexure-3 she was awarded interim maintenance vide order dated 21.11.2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,000 to the claimant and Rs. 1,000 to her son.
4. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Principal Judge. Family Court. Jamshedpur, an order was passed to stay the payment of maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act vide order dated 17.12.2008 in Complaint Case No. 564 of 2008.
5. In the circumstances. evidently the opposite party is not getting maintenance on the basis of two different orders. However. the grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party made concealment and did not bring this fact to the notice of the Principal Judge, Family Court. that she has been awarded Rs.1.000 + Rs. 1,000 from Allahabad Court and by making such concealment she is not entitled to get any maintenance.
6. After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I am of the considered view that this by itself is not sufficient to disentitle the wife and the minor son from receiving any maintenance. The fact that the opposite is the wife of the petitioner and the one minor son has no financial source is not disputed and. therefore, it is bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and son.
7. Under these facts and circumstances, I do not see any error on the face of record and that the Court has committed any manifest error of law in granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the Matrimonial Suit No. 323 of 2008 pending in the Court of the Principal Judge. Family Court. Jamshedpur.
8. Accordingly. there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
