VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. SANTOSHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This D.B. Civil Misc.Appeal under S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgement dt. 18-9-86 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 422/86. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a petition under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the respondent in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The appellant husband has denied the factum of marriage with the respondent. An application filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the trial Court. Against this an appeal was filed before the learned single Judge of this Court which was accepted and after setting aside the order of the trial Court, the matter was remanded back for retrial in the light of observations made in it. The appellant filed a special appeal against the decision of learned single Judge which has also been dismissed by this Court.

(2.) In the meanwhile when the case was remanded by the learned single Judge to the trial Court, the respondent filed an application under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance of pendente lite. The learned trial court granted this application and has fixed an amount of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel Shri R.P. Garg appearing on behalf of the appellant is that since the factum of marriage is itself in dispute no order of pendente lite maintenance is justified. It was also urged that the Special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court riled by the appellant against the order of remand was also pending, therefore, also the trial court should not have awarded maintenance to the respondent. It is further contended that since earlier also an application filed under S.125, Cr. P.C. by the respondent for maintenance was rejected, therefore, no maintenance could now be granted under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent. The learned counsel Shri P.N. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the order of the trial court and has urged that the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion which calls for no interference.