# Vikram Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 85 of 2023
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikram-chaturvedi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50193
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 24 - Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings - Issue -
5 All. Vikram Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
221
'Whether allegation of second marriage of
the wife during the pendency of the
divorce petition raised by the husband
would deter the Court from granting a
statutory right vested upon the wife': Held
- Learned Principal Judge rightly awarded
a lump sum amount of Rs. 2000/- towards
expenses for filing the written statement
and Rs. 3000/- per month towards travel
expenses, litigation expenses, and interim
maintenance till the disposal of the suit.
Only an allegation of second marriage of
the wife has been raised by the husband
against the wife, and it is a fact yet to be
proved by adducing cogent evidence by
the husband to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned. If such a position is not
accepted, in every case, an unscrupulous
husband or wife, as the case may be, can
always raise such an allegation against
the spouse to avoid any liability to pay the
litigation
expenses
and
interim
maintenance, which would not be the
legislative intent while enacting such a
beneficial provision in the Act, 1955. (Para
12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs Nidhi Singh, First
Appeal Defective No. 17 of 2023, dated
11.04.2023

## Text

220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the head of future loss of income, no
amount has been granted.

19. As far as Oriental Insurance
Company is concerned, the main ground of
the challenge is that the driver of truck No.
DHL 3616 did not hold valid driving
licence and, therefore, the
insurance
company could not have been held liable to
indemnify the owner and they have claimed
breach of policy condition under Section 96
of motor vehicles Act, 1931.

20. The owner has produced the
driving licence of the driver. The Insurance
company before the tribunal tried to
show their driving licence who has
driven the vehicle. Unfortunately, the
Investigating
Authority
rather
the
surveyor had gone to the RTO with
licence of one Zaheer Ahmad whose
father is also different, namely, Hafiz Ali
Aziz. In our several cases, driver cannot
be said that there was no driving licence.
The judgment of the tribunal cannot be
found fault with and the appeals of
Insurance Companies on this ground will
have to be failed.

21. Thus, the appeals preferred by
Oriental
Insurance
Company
cannot
succeed. This Court now decides the
contention of the New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. namely that their liability was a
limited liability. However, this was never
pressed into service before the tribunal
rather additional Rs.70 was charged by the
appellants for taking higher the third party
risk.

22. In that view of the matter, the
contention of New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. is that it was a limited policy cannot be
accepted once the parties contract for
unlimited liability.

23. Hence, all these appeals fail. The
ground raiseds even on the compensation
being awarded is on higher side cannot
succeed as the compensation awarded is
without granting any future loss of income.
The said finding cannot be interfered with.
Appeals are disposed of as the amount
awarded to the heirs of driver of bus is
meager, there shall be no recoveries from
the claimants.

24. In view of the above, all these
appeals being devoid of merits are
dismissed.

25. Record be transmitted to tribunal.
The tribunal shall disburse all amounts kept
in fixed deposit by orders of this Court.
Amount deposited in High Court be
transmitted
to
tribunal,
if
yet
not
transmitted.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 220
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

First Appeal No. 85 of 2023

Vikram Chaturvedi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shikhar Chaube, Saubhagya Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 24 - Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings - Issue -
5 All. Vikram Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
221
'Whether allegation of second marriage of
the wife during the pendency of the
divorce petition raised by the husband
would deter the Court from granting a
statutory right vested upon the wife': Held
- Learned Principal Judge rightly awarded
a lump sum amount of Rs. 2000/- towards
expenses for filing the written statement
and Rs. 3000/- per month towards travel
expenses, litigation expenses, and interim
maintenance till the disposal of the suit.
Only an allegation of second marriage of
the wife has been raised by the husband
against the wife, and it is a fact yet to be
proved by adducing cogent evidence by
the husband to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned. If such a position is not
accepted, in every case, an unscrupulous
husband or wife, as the case may be, can
always raise such an allegation against
the spouse to avoid any liability to pay the
litigation
expenses
and
interim
maintenance, which would not be the
legislative intent while enacting such a
beneficial provision in the Act, 1955. (Para
12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs Nidhi Singh, First
Appeal Defective No. 17 of 2023, dated
11.04.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Shri Shikhar Chaube,
learned
Counsel
representing
the
appellant.
Having
regard
to
the
averments made in the application
seeking deletion of respondent no.1 from
the array of the parties, application is
allowed.

(2) Let the name of respondent no.1
be deleted from the array of the parties
and respondent no.2 be renumbered as
respondent no.1. Necessary corrections
in the memo of appeal shall be
incorporated by learned Counsel for the
appellant during course of the day.

Order on Appeal

(3) Through the instant First Appeal
under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts
Act,
1984,
the
appellant/husband,
Vikram Chaturvedi, has challenged the
order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sultanpur, whereby application filed by
respondent no.1/wife (Smt. Priyanka
alias Roli) under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 in Regular Suit No.
884 of 2021 : Vikram Chaturvedi Vs.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi, under Section
13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has
been allowed and she has been awarded
lump sum amount of Rs.2000/- towards
expenses for filing written statement and
Rs. 3000/- per month towards travel
expenses, litigation expenses and interim
maintenance till disposal of the suit
under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955.

(4) The brief facts of the case culled
out from the record available before us are
that the appellant/husband has filed a suit,
numbered as Regular Suit No. 884 of 2021,
seeking divorce under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as ''Act, 1955' for the sake of
brevity).
In
the
aforesaid
suit,
the
respondent no.1/wife filed an application
under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein
she
pleaded
that
her
marriage
was
solemnized
with
the
appellant
on
01.12.2020 according to Hindu rites and
rituals; on 30.08.2021, the appellant and his
family members have turned her out of her
matrimonial home and have deserted her
and after having been turned out of her
matrimonial home, she is residing with her
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parents.
Respondent
no.1/wife
further
pleaded that her husband (appellant) is
working in a Limited Company at New
Delhi, from which he earns Rs.50,000/- as
salary and in addition to that, he also has an
additional
agriculture
income
of
Rs.20,000/-. Respondent no.1/wife has
further pleaded that she does not have any
source of income nor has she any skill by
which she can maintain herself. In this
backdrop, the respondent no.1/wife prayed
to award Rs.5000/- towards expenses for
filing written statement and Rs. 5000/- per
month towards fee of Advocate and legal
expenses etc.

(5) The appellant filed objection
against the aforesaid application under
Section 24 of the Act, 1955, wherein he
admitted the fact that the respondent no.1
is his wife. The appellant has further
stated in his objection that during the stay
at the parental house, the parents of
respondent no.1/wife got her married to
Sunil Kumar Tiwari alias Guddu Tiwari,
son of late Ram Sakal Tiwari, resident of
Arisiya, hamlet of Sanvardhir, Police
Station Haiderganj, District Ayodhya and
on coming to know about the second
marriage, it has been stated by the
appellant that he has filed a complaint
case under Section 190 of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973,
bearing
Criminal Case No. 557 of 2022 : Vikram
Vs. Priyanka and others, under Sections
494, 504, 506 I.P.C. before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18,
Police
Station
Lambhua,
District
Sultanpur. Appellant has also stated that
presently, his wife/respondent no.1 is
pregnant of about five months. Appellant
has also enclosed a photograph of his
wife/respondent no.1 along with the said
Sunil Kumar in his objection. In this
background, appellant has prayed for
rejection of the application filed by his
wife/respondent no.1 under Section 24 of
the Act, 1955.

(6) Apparently, vide an order dated
06.02.2023, the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sultanpur, has allowed the
application under Section 24 of the Act,
1955
of
the
respondent
no.1/wife,
awarding lump sum amount of Rs.2000/-
towards expenses for filing written
statement and Rs.3000/- per month
towards
travel
expenses,
litigation
expenses and interim maintenance to her,
till disposal of the regular suit under
Section 13 of the Act, 1955.

(7) The learned Counsel for the
appellant has invited our attention to
questionnaire annexed as Annexure No.6 to
the instant First Appeal and has argued that
in
compliance
of
the
order
dated
26.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in the
Criminal Case No. 236 of 2022, the Station
House Officer, Lambhua has investigated
the matter under Section 202 (i) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
submitted its report before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.37,
Sultanpur, stating therein that accusedPriyanka alias Roli (respondent no.1/wife
herein) has performed the second marriage
but the name of the husband to whom she
has married could not be traced out during
the investigation. Submission is that from
the aforesaid report of the Station House
Officer, Lambhua, prima facie, it is
established that even before the dissolution
of the marriage between the appellant and
his wife/respondent no.1, the respondent
no.1/wife has solemnized second marriage
with one Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari alias
Guddu Tiwari and as such the appellant has
no obligation to provide maintenance to his
5 All. Vikram Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
wife, but while passing the impugned order,
learned Principal Judge, Sultanpur, has
failed to consider the aforesaid facts and
also the fact that respondent no.1/wife has
committed
the
offence
of
bigamy
punishable under Section 494 I.P.C., hence,
in the aforesaid background, the impugned
order dated 06.02.2023 is not sustainable
and is liable to be set-aside.

(8)
We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel representing the appellant and
have also perused the records available
before us on this appeal.

(9) Before analyzing the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
appellant, it would be apt to discuss the
intent of Section 24 of the Act, 1955. For
this purpose, Section 24 of the Act, 1955,
which is relevant in the present context,
reads as under :-

"24. Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings: Where in
any proceeding under this Act it appears to
the court that either the wife or the
husband, as the case may be, has no
independent income sufficient for her or his
support and the necessary expenses of the
proceeding, it may, on the application of
the wife or the husband, order the
respondent to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding, and monthly
during the proceeding such sum as, having
regard to the petitioner' s own income and
the income of the respondent, it may seem
to the court to be reasonable."

(10) A plain reading of the aforesaid
provision shows that intention of the
legislature
is
that
where,
in
any
proceedings, it appears to the Court that
either the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, has no independent income
sufficient for her or his support and the
necessary expenses of the proceeding, it
may, order the respondent to pay the
expenses of the proceedings and monthly
maintenance during the proceeding. These
words make the intention of the legislature
quite clear that expenses have to be allowed
by the Court, as a support system, if the
requirement as provided under Section 24
of Act, 1955 are fulfilled for a period
during the pendency of the suit or
proceeding.

(11) The cause of action for filing a
case under Section 24 of the Act, 1955
would arise only when there is a
matrimonial proceeding initiated by the
husband or wife. Therefore, the primary
requirement for claiming maintenance
under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 is the
pendency of a matrimonial proceeding.
This provision was introduced with a
laudable object of ensuring "support and
maintenance" to a party in the proceeding
so as to enable him or her to maintain
themselves during the pendency of such
proceedings. This provision also permits
the Court to award a reasonable amount for
the purpose of conducting the matrimonial
proceeding. There is no ceiling limit
prescribed for the purpose of granting
maintenance under Section 24 of the Act,
1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 seeks to
maintain an equilibrium between the two
parties to the litigation during the pendency
of the proceeding as it makes provision for
payment of as and towards support and
maintenance for a party who is in a
disadvantageous position to maintain and to
diligently
contest
the
proceeding
on
account of poor economic condition.

(12) In the instant case, the question
before
us,
under
the
facts
and
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances of the case, would be
''whether allegation of second marriage of
the respondent no.1/wife during pendency
of the divorce petition raised by the
husband/appellant, would deter the Court
to grant a statutory right vested upon the
wife'. It is to be remembered in this context
that only an allegation of second marriage
of respondent no.1/wife has been raised by
the
appellant/husband
against
the
respondent no.1/wife and it is a fact yet to
be proved by adducing cogent evidence by
the appellant/husband to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned. Therefore, the view
taken by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Sultanpur, in allowing a
special benefit bestowed upon a party in
view of the objective to be achieved by
the provision of Section 24 of the Act,
1955, cannot be faulted with for the
simple reason that the allegation by the
appellant are at a very nascent stage,
veracity of which is still to be examined
by a competent Court of law and in any
case if such a position is not accepted, in
every case an unscrupulous husband or
wife, as the case may be, can always
raise such an allegation against the
spouse to avoid any liability to pay the
litigation
expenses
and
interim
maintenance, which, according to this
Court, would not be the legislative intent
while
enacting
such
a
beneficial
provision in the Act, 1955.

(13) Recently, this Court in First
Appeal Defective No. 17 of 2023 (Jitendra
Pratap Singh Vs. Nidhi Singh), vide order
dated 11.04.2023, had an occasion to
observe the meaning and import of Section
24 of the Act, 1955, which is squarely
applicable to the present case in hand. This
Court, in paragraph-14 of the aforesaid
case, has held as under :-

"14. It is pertinent to mention that
the provisions of Section 24 of the Act,
1955 is a piece of beneficial legislation and
as such, duty is cast on the Court to
exercise its discretion in awarding amount
for support and maintenance during the
ligation proceedings, so that the indigent
spouse may not suffer at the instance of the
affluent spouse, who has filed proceedings
under any of the provisions of the Act,
1955. The very objective of interim
maintenance is to ensure that the dependent
spouse is not reduced to destitution or
vagrancy on account of the failure of the
marriage. The Court, while considering the
merits of an application for grant of an
interim maintenance under Section 24 of
the Act, 1955, has to necessarily arrive at
prima facie determination about the
earning capacity of the rival claimant. The
determination
cannot
be
made
with
exactitude as it is essentially interim in
nature. The Court is called upon to make a
summary consideration of amount which
the applicant is to be awarded by way of
maintenance pendente lite and litigation
expenses in accordance with the financial
resources of the parties."

(14) It is relevant to add here that the
right to claim maintenance and expense
during pendency of proceedings under the
Act, 1955, is a special right bestowed on
the disadvantageous spouse, irrespective of
the result of the main relief under Section
13 of the Act, 1955. Therefore, in the
present case, allowing the claim of the
respondent
no.1/wife
for
interim
maintenance and litigation expenses by
means of the impugned order by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Sultanpur, cannot be faulted with as the
same is legally sustainable and is not liable
to be interfered with.
5 All. Nagar Kshetra Samiti, Sadabad, Mathura Vs. Kanchan Singh & Ors.
225

(15) For all the aforesaid reasons, the
instant First Appeal fails and as such is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 225
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 108 of 2008
And
Second Appeal No. 26 of 2020

Nagar Kshetra Samiti, Sadabad, Mathura
 ...Appellant
Versus
Kanchan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri
V.K. Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Srivastava, Sri Anil Kumar, Sri J.B.
Singh, Sri J. Singh, Sri Jeevan Singh, Sri
Preet Pal Rathore, Sri V.A. Agarwal, Sri
Vinod Kumar Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Order 41 Rule 33-Appellate Court
by exercising the power under Order 41
Rule 33 varied the decree of demolition
substituting it by a direction to the
plaintiffs to pay for the constructions
raised-the constructions were, on the
concurrent findings of the court below,
raised without title by defendant no. 4,
disturbing
the
plaintiffs'
possessiondefendants
no.
4
out
of
4
to
7
defendants, who contested the suit, did
not appeal the Trial's court decree-it
was the defendant's no. 1 alone that
appealed the decree, therefore to direct
some benefit to defendants no. 4 to 7 by
the lower appellate court is absolutely
without basis i.e. in the absence of a
'cross -objection' under Order 41 Rule
22
of
the
code-Thus,
the
Lower
Appellate Court is not at all justified in
granting relief to the defendants no. 4 to
7 to recover costs of the constructions
from the plaintiffs-The decree passed by
the
Lower
Appellate
Court
is
set
aside.(Para 1 to 74)

The appeals are disposed of.(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. St. of Ori. & anr. Vs Bamadeb Panigrahi & anr.
(1971) AIR Ori 227

2. Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & anr. Vs UOI
(1958) AIR SC 274

3. Munuswami Chetty & ors. Vs Commr.H.R.&
C.E (Admn). Madras (1993) AIR Mad 144

4. St. of A.P. & ors. Vs Pioneer Builders,
A.P.(2006) 12 SCC 119

5. K. Muthuswami Gounder Vs N. Palaniappa
Gounder (1998) 7 SCC 327

6. Banarsi & ors. Vs Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide Second
Appeal No.108 of 2008 and Second Appeal
No.26 of 2020, both of which arise out of
the same suit. The Trial Court decided the
suit by the same judgment, leading to a
single appeal from the original decree by
one of the defendants. The judgment and
decree passed by the Lower Appellate
Court has left both the plaintiffs and the
defendants dissatisfied, leading to these
two appeals, arising out of the appellate
decree.

2. Original Suit No.389 of 1986 was
instituted on 14.11.1986 by Kanchan Singh
and Man Singh, both sons of Babu Lal in
the ex-Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura