High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 07 UK CK 0067

Rajesh Goyal vs Madhu Rani

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 13 July 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal From Order No. 205 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 364 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2/2022)

1.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 15 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.

2.

The appellant assails the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.329 of 2019. By the impugned order, the Family Court has rejected the application moved by the appellant-husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking maintenance from the respondent-wife.

3.

The case of the appellant is that he is 50% disabled and is unable to earn his livelihood. On the other hand, the respondent, it appears, is serving in the Irrigation Department of the State. The application was opposed by the respondent by stating that she alone had taken the responsibility of bringing up her two daughters. The first one has married by spending about Rs.25 Lakhs. She has also taken loan for the said wedding. She is meeting all the expenses in respect of second daughter. The appellant has ancestral property i.e. agricultural land in his name in village patti Gadar, District Kaithal. The appellant rather than liquidating the said property to meet his expenses is demanding maintenance from the respondent-wife. According to the respondent, the appellant is in the habit of drinking and gambling and the money provided by her in the past was used for the said habits of the appellant.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

5.

No doubt, the appellant is 50% handicapped. However, he is being looked after by his mother and sister. Admittedly, he has ancestral agricultural land in village patti Gadar, District Kaithal. The appellant rather than liquidating the said resources, is laying claim for maintenance on the respondent-wife, who is taking entire burden of maintaining the daughters and meeting all their expenses including the marriage and education.

6.

In these circumstances, we find no merits in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. However, since the proceedings are pending before the Family Court since 2019, we direct the Family Court to expedite the hearing in the proceedings pending before it.