IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 188 of 2011 Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o late Shri J.K. Sharma R/o 19, Keshav Road, L axman Chowk, Dehradun. . . A ..………… ppellant Versus Smt. Vinita Sharma W/o Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma R/o Nagarwala Road, Ahmednagar (Maharastra). ...…………. Respondent Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the respondent. And Appeal From Order No. 192 of 2011 Smt. Vinita Sharma W/o Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma R/o 19 Keshav Road, Laxman Chowk, Dehradun. Presently R/o Nagarwala Road, A hmednagar (Maharastra). . . A ..………… ppellant Versus Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o late Shri J.K. Sharma 2 R/o 19, Keshav Road, Laxman Chowk, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, present for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (oral) Both these appeals, are directed against the order dated 13.05.2011, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 115 of 2009, whereby said court has directed the husband (Arvind Kumar Sharma) to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 15,000/- per month to his wife (Vinita Sharma) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court has further directed that ` 8,000/- shall be paid towards litigation expenses, and ` 200/- per month for diet money and traveling allowance on every date to the wife. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that Arvind Kumar Sharma got married to Vinita Sharma in the year 1982. Two children, one son and one daughter, were born out of the wedlock. Both the children are major and well 3 settled. It appears that the relations between the parties to the matrimony got soured, and a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was filed by the husband (Arvind Kumar Sharma) against his wife (Vinita Sharma) which is registered as petition No. 74 of 2009, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. In said petition on 15.09.2009, the wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance at the rate of ` 50,000/- per month. The husband (Arvind Kumar Sharma) is posted as Addl. Chief Advisor (Legal) with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun. His monthly salary is said to be ` 60,000/- per month. The husband contested said application before the trial court and pleaded that his wife is already getting ` 5,000/- per month under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, under orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. It is also pleaded by the husband that the respondent (wife) is earning ` 20,000/- per month by doing teaching job. It is also stated in the objection filed before the trial court that the wife is earning from interest on the fixed term deposits. The trial court, after hearing the parties and considering the circumstances of the case, directed that ` 15,000/- per month shall be paid by the husband to his wife as maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in addition to ` 8,000/- towards litigation expenses, and ` 200/- towards traveling allowance and diet money on every date. 4 4) On behalf of the husband it is pleaded that the amount directed to be paid is excessive. On the other hand, on behalf of the wife it is pleaded that the amount directed to be paid is insufficient. 5) We have considered the economic status of the husband and the wife, and the circumstances under which the trial court has directed the husband to pay maintenance at the aforesaid rate. We find the impugned order just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The trial court has taken note of the fact that the wife is already getting ` 5,000/- per month from her husband under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. We see neither any reason to enhance the amount directed to be paid by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, nor any reason to set that order aside. 6) Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. It is observed that the parties to matrimony shall cooperate with the trial court, and the trial court shall proceed with the divorce petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 21, 2011. H. Negi