Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30706-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 116 of 2025 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Respondent :- Shashi Mishra Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Mishra,Ram Suphal Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application. 1. Heard. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application is sufficient. 3. Application is accordingly allowed and the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is treated to have been filed in time. Order on Memo of Appeal 4. This appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the "Act, 1955"). 5. Brief facts of the case, as averred by the appellant, are that marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 9.2.2020 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on 4.10.2023. Application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 was registered as Application No 10- Ka, which was decided vide order dated 14.2.2025 with a direction to the appellant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of fling of the application. He was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as expenses of litigation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondent deserted the appellant without any plausible cause and without respecting the social image, therefore, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on 4.10.2023. However, during pendency of the said petition, the respondent with a view to harass the appellant, filed an application under Section 24 of the Act,1955. The Family Court without considering the financial condition of the appellant vide order dated 14.2.2025 directed the appellant to pay Rs. 15,000/- as interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- , which is excess especially when the appellant is working as Assistant Teacher and his salary is only Rs. 77,952/- per month. The appellant has also to pay Rs. 18,000/- to her mother as per order of the court. After all deductions as aforesaid, Rs. 34,952/- is left and if he pays Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance, then it is difficult for the appellant to survive with the remaining meager amount.He further submits that respondent is a well educated woman and she is running a coaching centre and is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent is running a coaching center and is earning Rs.12,000/- per month is bereft of record as no reliable document has been brought on record by the appellant to prove the aforesaid fact. Therefore, without any evidence or document to substantiate the argument, the same cannot be accepted and relied upon. More over, it is the specific case of the respondent that after leaving the house of the appellant, she is living with her father and she has no source of income and ways and means to meet out her day-to-day expenses, rather she has burden on her aged father. 8. From the record, it transpires that respondent has been living separately for considerable period and she has no source of income and during this period, the appellant has not paid any single penny to the respondent. It is trite law that it is the bounden duty of a husband, rather an obligation to maintain her deserted wife to meet out her daily and essential expenses unless and until she has any monthly source of income or perform second marriage. 9. Considering the monthly income of the appellant, who is working as an Assistant Teacher in a College, and the financial condition of the respondent, we are of the considered view that the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court cannot be said to be excess. The Family Court has passed the impugned order in detail after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the income of the appellant, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in it. 10. The appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Anuj Singh Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench