IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No. 230 of 2018

Ankit Kumar Jain

… Appellant

Versus

Smt. Sonam Jain

…Respondent

Present:

Mr. B. S. Negi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGEMENT

Coram:-

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

1.

The instant appeal is preferred against the order dated

01.05.2016, passed in Original Suit No. 329 of 2017 Ankit Kumar

Jain vs. Smt. Sonam Jain, by the Court of Learned Family Judge,

Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”). By the impugned

order, an application for maintenance pendente lite filed by the

respondent was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to pay

a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and

Rs.7,000/- towards the expenses of the proceedings.

2.

The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act and based on it, the suit was instituted. During the

pendency of the suit, an application for maintenance pendente lite as

well as expenses of the proceedings, under Section 24 of the Act, has

been filed. Objections were filed by the respondent and after hearing

- 2 -

the parties by the impugned order the application was decided.

Aggrieved by it, the instant appeal is preferred.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

appellant is a bank employee and his parents are also dependent upon

him, therefore, the amount for maintenance pendente lite is on a

higher side, which may be reduced.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would

urge that as per the admitted submissions of the appellant, his salary

is Rs. 46,000/- per month and respondent has no source of earning.

Therefore, the amount which has been awarded to the respondent as

maintenance pendente lite is adequate and reasonable and no

interference should be made in the impugned order.

5.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after deduction, the

salary of the appellant is Rs. 34,248/- and there is no evidence on

record which may reveal that the respondent is earning by any

means. Keeping in view the financial status of the appellant and his

liabilities, this court is of the view that maintenance pendente lite of

Rs.10,000/- per month is, in fact, reasonable and adequate. There is

no reason to make any interference in the impugned order and the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.)

Pant

23.07.2019

- 3 -