Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. dismissed and appeal on the admission stage itself which was directed against the order passed by the family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the appellant husband.
It was noted from the impugned order that only Rs. 3000/- per month had been granted towards interim maintenance to the respondent wife apart from Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of the proceeding. Counsel of the appellant had challenged the order contending that the appellant was unemployed and he has no source of income. It was further submitted that the respondent wife has independent income as she is running a medical store along with his father who is a doctor.
The Court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the respondent wife is educated and is doing something to survive since she has been thrown out of her matrimonial home cannot be a reason to deny interim maintenance.
An able-bodied husband cannot argue that he is not in a position to maintain his wife. It is social, legal and moral responsibility of a man to maintain his wife and no exception to the same can be taken by us, in view of bald assertions of the appellant.
The Court dismissed the appeal referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 where law of maintenance was discussed.
[Vaibhav Singh v. Divyashika Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine All 577, decided on 03-08-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the Appellant.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
