IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. RAVINDRA MAITHANI

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA

Appeal From Order No. 300 of 2025

25th August, 2025

Vinod Kumar ………Appellant

Versus

Sangeet ………Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, learned counsel for the appellant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

The appellant proposes to challenge the order

dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 285 of 2023 Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Sangeet, (“the case”) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By the impugned order, the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of ₹50/- as travelling allowance to the respondent on each date of hearing, as well as ₹10,000/-

towards expenses of the proceedings of the case.

2. The appeal is delayed by 244 days. The appellant has explained that he has been working as a daily wager and, being a poor person with limited means, he had to arrange funds for engaging counsel and meeting other expenses in

order to approach this Court. This caused the delay in filing the appeal. Having considered the grounds stated in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

3. The delay of 244 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Heard on admission.

5. The case is based on an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act. In the case, the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking litigation expenses and other allowances. By the impugned order, the learned court below has directed the appellant to pay ₹50/- towards travelling expenses to the respondent for each date of hearing when respondent appears in the case, and a sum of ₹10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the appellant has already been directed to pay a sum of ₹2,500/- as interim maintenance to the respondent. It is further submitted that both the parties may appear before this Court, so as to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between them.

7. Insofar as the aspect of exploring the possibilities of an amicable settlement between the parties is concerned, this Court is of the view that, for this purpose alone, the parties need not be called before this Court at this stage. Since the parties are already engaged in litigation, they shall have ample opportunities to explore the possibility of amicable settlement before the Court where the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act are pending.

8. It is not the case that the learned Court below did not consider the amount of interim maintenance awarded against the appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In fact, the same was under consideration. What has been directed by the impugned order is only the payment of ₹50/- per date towards travelling expenses when the respondent appears in the case.

9. The amount awarded, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be excessive. In addition, the appellant has also been directed to pay ₹10,000/- towards expenses of the proceedings. This Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

10. The appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

(Alok Mahra, J.)

Dated: 25.08.2025 Mamta