[2025:RJ-JD:35619-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1243/2024 Mahendra Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sangita Colony, Vishnavaas, Lohavat, District Phalodi.

----Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Sharma W/o Mahendra Sharma, D/o Late Champalal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 213 Shivaji Nagar (Labour Colony)

Pali, Tehsil Pali, District Pali.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Likma Ram Upadhyaya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

11/08/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present misc. appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2023, whereby, the application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) has been allowed.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that on 05.04.2021, the appellant has preferred an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce. During the pendency of the said application, the respondent preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 seeking interim maintenance. After considering the rival submissions, the learned trial court vide order dated 22.9.2023 partly allowed the application, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance amount to the respondent and that appellant shall also pay a sum of Rs.200/- on each hearing of the proceedings of application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and that the appellant shall also pay a lump sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent towards expenses. The learned trial court also ordered that in case the respondent is receiving or may receive any maintenance amount in other proceedings in future, then too, the amount awarded by it shall be liable to be adjusted. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that after passing of the order dated 22.09.2023, the appellant has withdrawn the application preferred by him under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for taking recourse available under the law. He submits that the respondent was already married with other person, and therefore, the marriage solemnized with the appellant was a nullity. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent is already receiving an amount of Rs.4,000/- pursuant to the order passed on the application preferred by her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed and the order dated 22.09.2023 may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned trial court on 22.09.2023 is just, proper and correct, having been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case. He submits that during the pendency of the divorce petition preferred by the appellant, she moved an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 as she had no means of survival and no independent income sufficient to meet her with day to day expenses. The learned Court below has rightly considered the factual aspects in the matter, while allowing the application vide order dated 22.09.2023. He therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed. In alternative, learned counsel prays that the amount awarded pursuant to order passed on the application preferred by her under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be adjusted towards the amount awarded by the learned Court below vide order dated 22.09.2023.

6. We have considered the submission made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case, including order dated 22.09.2023.

7. From the facts of the present case, it demonstrate that the appellant has preferred a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and during the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent has preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Court b