Allahabad High Court
FAPL/209/2025 of SHASHI KANT Vs RINKI GAUTAM on 5 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL No. - 209 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the impugned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
FIRST APPEAL No. - 209 of 2025
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi in M. Case No.1453 of 2023 (Shashi Kant vs. Smt. Rinki Gauam) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The appellant has challenged the order dated 04.11.2025 passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Case No.1453 of 2023 (Shashi Kant vs. Smt. Rinki Gautam).
4. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that only Rs.3,000/- per month has been allowed to the respondent as maintenance and Rs.5,000/- has been allowed as one-time lump sum payment for litigation expenses.
5. The learned trial court has considered all the pleadings raised by both the parties and has come to a conclusion which we do not find to be unreasonable. The case of the appellant that he was only a labourer has also been considered and it has been taken into account that even on Rs.9,000/- per month income, as admitted by him, the wife, i.e., the respondent, is entitled to 1/3rd of such income as maintenance, as she is admittedly the wife of the appellant and living separately from him. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Roshan Kumar, Alok Kumar Pathak, Sudhir Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Shashi Kant .....Appellant(s) Rinki Gautam .....Respondent(s)
6. We do not find any good ground to show interference. The appeal is dismissed. December 5, 2025 Shubhankar FAPL No. 209 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench