Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17770-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 66 of 2025 Appellant :- Devraj Kumar Respondent :- Savita Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Kumar Sharma,Vinay Swaroop Mishra Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay condoned. 4. The application is allowed. Order on Memorandum of Appeal 1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband Devraj Kumar under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur, whereby application filed by the respondent-wife (Savita) under Section 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( in short 'Act, 1955) in Regular Suit No.912 of 2023 (Devraj Kumar vs. Savita), filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed and she has been awarded an amount of Rs.2000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses from the date of application. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerged from perusal of record available before us, are that appellant who is the husband filed a Suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of Act, 1955. The appellant was married to respondent on 16.02.2023 according to Buddhist rites and rituals. Thereafter, there was no cordial relations between them. The wife was deserted by her husband and after having been deserted out of her matrimonial home, she is residing with her parents since 13.04.2023. 3. In the Suit filed by the appellant-husband for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 with a prayer that she should be paid Rs.10,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and also Rs.10,000/- one time amount for litigation expenses. On the application of respondent-wife, the appellant also filed his objections, in which he has admitted that he was married with respondent and further stated that wife was running a beauty parlour and cosmetic shop whereas he is only a labourer earning a meagre amount. 4. After going through the record, the court passed the order of awarding Rs.2000/-p.m. as an interim maintenance per month and also Rs.3000/- as litigation costs to respondent wife. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is a poor labourer and the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the court below does not commensurate with the fact that appellant has meagre income. Therefore, awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000/- as an interim maintenance and Rs. 3000/-p.m. as litigation charges, is not sustainable and is liable to be set- aside. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant and have also perused the records. 7. After going through the record, we find that respondent- wife at the moment is residing with her parents and she is entitled for the maintenance from her husband. The claim of the respondent-wife for interim maintenance and litigation expenses by means of the impugned order cannot be faulted and learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any perversity or illegality in the finding recorded by the court below. The appellant being husband, is under legal obligation to pay maintenance and a meagre amount of Rs.2000/- per month awarded by the court below in favour of wife needs no interference. Appeal is devoid of merits. 8. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Pks ( Brij Raj Singh, J.) ( Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench