Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9779-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 45 of 2025 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar @ Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Shilpi Devi @ Mahima Counsel for Appellant :- Gyanendra Pathak,Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Order on the application for condoantion of delay 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 155 days as reported by the office. 3. We have gone through the application for condoantion of delay supported by affidavit wherein it has been stated that deponent did not receive any notice of the impugned order and therefore, he could not approach this Court earlier. 4. The explanation given for approaching this Court with delay is sufficient. 5. The application for condoantion of delay is allowed. 6. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. Order on Appeal 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed with a prayer to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bahraich in Case No 1374/2023, (Shilpa Devi @ Mahima V/S Daddan Kumar @ Kuldeep) U/s-13 Hindu Marriage Act. 3. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which an order was passed on 17.7.2023 and trial court has awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 1500 per month to the respondent which the respondent did not disclose before the Principal Judge, Family Court and there was no adjustment made of such amount in the impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2024. It has also been stated that the respondent does not wish to live with the appellant as is evident from the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings, which have been initiated by the respondent and therefore, there was no reason for maintenance to be awarded to the respondent. 4. We have gone through the impugned order dated 9.8.2024, which has been passed on interim relief application i.e. Paper 9- C moved by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance can be granted on the basis of the pleadings on record. In this case, the plaintiff- Shilpi Devi filed affidavit as Paper No. 11-C in compliance of orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and it was established that she was not working anywhere and was a simple housewife. The trial court has given only Rs. 5000/- as a cost for litigation and Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance while allowing the application under Section 24. We do not think it an unreasonable amount to show any interference, as the appellant himself has stated that in earlier application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the respondent had been given Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance but it has not been stated anywhere that he was complying with the earlier order and giving Rs. 1500/- to his wife per month. Even if, he was complying with such an order of Rs. 1500/- per month given in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the fact that the trial court has by the order impugned only directed payment of Rs. 1500/- per month needs to be considered and the total amount so directed to be paid by the Court concerned is only Rs. 3000/- per month, which comes out to be Rs. 100/- per day. 5. We do not find any good ground to show interference as prayed for. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Sangeeta Chandra, J.] Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench