Section 24 HMA

Jaspal singh (Querist) 14 October 2017 This query is : Resolved
Respected seniors..kindly help me into finding full judgment of below case..decided by allahbad high court. I tried alot on various sites but unable to find the same.
Regards
Jaspal singh (Adv)

1. A single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow headed by Justice D P Singh directed the wife to pay Rs 2,000 per month to Kumar, an employee in the state owned Uptron Corporation, which had been declared a sick unit following which the petitioner was getting only Rs 1,000 per month.

His wife, working in a bank, got a salary of Rs 13,000 per month, had filed the divorce petition against him in a family court.

The husband also filed an application before the court seeking direction to the wife to pay him maintenance and litigation expenses.

On November 7, a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow passed an interim maintenance order directing Kalpana Gupta to pay him Rs 2000 a month. The order comes into effect from September 1, 2005. Justice DP Singh has also directed the family court, Lucknow, to ensure regular payment of the maintenance, according to the order. Guptas had been married in 1989. The marriage, according to the neighbours, was "doomed right from the word go as the wife was more enterprising and aggressive and Santosh had been a happy go lucky, laid back sort of person."

Kalpana was employed with the Bhagirathi Grameen Bank in Sitapur, Santosh worked with the UPTRON till 1994 when the company was declared a sick unit.
Marital differences between the couple, who incidentally have no issues, began soon after the marriage. In 1997 Kalpana approached the family court for a divorce on ground of cruelty and demand of dowry by her husband and his family.

Santosh responded by filing an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and asked for maintenance during the pendency of litigation to support the necessary expenses of the proceedings. He was jobless and had no funds to contest the petition, he claimed. The family court in September 2005 rejected the claim and held that "he was an able-bodied and healthy man and capable of earning his own livelihood and therefore did not deserve any monetary support from his spouse".
Santosh challenged the order in the high court. In his order Justice Singh remarked that "since the petitioner was residing in own house and he has to incur the expenses of his widowed mother, his responsibilities seem to be higher than that of the respondent no 1 (the wife)".

The judge also said that "section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was equally applicable to both wife and husband" and directed that Kalpana whose salary is little above Rs 13000 a month to pay him Rs 2000 till the pendency of the suit to enable him to contest the case, informed Santosh's lawyer MM Shrivastava.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

rajeev sharma (Expert) 16 October 2017
you may search the website of ALLAHABAD HIIGH COURT LUCKNOW BENCH by the name of parties in writ or by date of order and judge name