- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uma v. B.N. Chandrashekariah
Factual and Procedural Background
The Petitioner, who is the wife of the Respondent, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Bangalore. Alongside, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for interim maintenance. The Family Court rejected this application, which led to the present writ petition challenging that rejection.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for interim maintenance is maintainable in proceedings arising out of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the impugned order rejecting the interim maintenance application was justified in the absence of material regarding the Respondent's income.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was vague and bald, lacking any disclosure of the Respondent’s income. Since the Petitioner is a salaried individual earning a gross monthly salary of Rs. 8,900, and no material was placed on record regarding the Respondent’s earnings, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Family Court's rejection of the interim maintenance application. However, the Court clarified that the Family Court erred in holding that such an application under Section 24 is not maintainable in proceedings arising under Section 9. The Court affirmed that interim maintenance applications are maintainable in such proceedings but concluded that, on the facts of this case, the Petitioner’s prayer could not be granted due to lack of supporting material.
Holding and Implications
The Court’s final decision was to dismiss the petition. The direct effect is that the impugned order rejecting the interim maintenance application stands affirmed, but without prejudice to the Petitioner making a future application for interim maintenance. Any such future application will be considered on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the current order. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.
ORDER
Petitioner is the wife of Respondent. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Petitioner has sought restitution of conjugal rights and filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the family Court, Bangalore. In the said matter, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for interim maintenance. Said application is rejected by the impugned order.
2. The copy of the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition. Said application is bald and vague. Nothing is stated in the said application/affidavit as to what is the income of the Respondent herein. In the absence of any material on record, the Court below should not have directed the Respondent to pay any amount of maintenance in favour of the Petitioner herein, more particularly when the Petitioner is a salaried lady, inasmuch as, she is getting monthly salary of Rs. 8,900/-(gross). In the absence of any material to show as to what is the income/earning of the Respondent, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the Court below has correctly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner.
3. However, the Court below is not justified in observing that the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance is not maintainable. Such an application praying interim maintenance is maintainable, even in the proceedings arising out of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, those observations are clarified accordingly. In view of the above, the prayer of the Petitioner cannot be granted.
Petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, if the Petitioner makes any application in future praying interim maintenance, the same shall be considered by the Court below in accordance with law and on merits without being prejudiced by the impugned order.
Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Alert