Sumit Agrawal v. Smt. Megha Agrawal
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No. 99 of 2018 • Sumit Agrawal S/o Late Jhumuklal Agrawal Aged About 33 Years R/o Dewangan Gali, Lakhenagar Dhal Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ---- Petitioner
Versus
• Smt. Megha Agrawal W/o Sumit Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Company Market Ambikapur, District Sarguja At Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ---- Respondent For Appellant Shri A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 09/05/2018 IA No.1 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant, delay of 2 days in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned. 1.
In the appellant's suit for divorce under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955'), the respondent wife has moved an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for grant of interim maintenance, litigation expenses and conveyance expenses.
2.
Admittedly, the appellant is in grocery business, whereas the respondent is not an earning member. She is residing with her parents at Ambikapur, whereas the trial is pending at Raipur. In view of the present wholesale and retail price index and the living standard of the parties, amount of Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance does not appear to be on the higher side. The issue as to whether the said amount is adequate or not for the wife shall be considered if the wife moves an application for enhancement, however, there is no scope for reducing the said amount.
3.
Likewise, grant of litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- and the conveyance expenses is also not on the higher side. 4.
The appellant has not raised any such ground in this appeal to support his contention that the amount of interim maintenance and litigation expenses allowed to the respondent is exorbitant or arbitrary.
5.
No case for interference with the impugned order is made out. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Judge Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ram Prasanna Sharma Nirala