SANJAY KUMAR v. SANGEETA SINGH
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: MUNNURI LAXMAN,SANGEETA SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-03. SANJAY KUMAR v. SANGEETA SINGH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:36004-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1094/2026 CNR: RJHC010197362026 | URN: CMA / 2122U / 2026 Sanjay Kumar S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 22 Sangriya, Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh Raj. ----Appellant Versus Sangeeta Singh W/o Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, D/o Late Shri Sher Singh R/o Ward No. 28, Sangriya, At Present Residing At Houseno. D/34, Fahetpur Veri, Har Sawroop Colony, New Delhi. 110074 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Daya Gulsar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 03/08/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband challenging the order dated 06. 01. 2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Application No. 45/2025 (CIS No.
20/2025) whereby, the interim maintenance was granted pending the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband. 2. By the impugned order, the Family Court has fixed the interim maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is illiterate and he has no means to pay [2026:RJ-JP:36004-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-1094/2026] Rs. 2500/- per month as directed by the Court below and the amount granted by the Family Court is excessive. Therefore, he prayed that the amount may be reduced. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submits that the respondentiwfe at present is having no means of livelihood and apart from maintenance, a child is also with her. In view thereof, no interference is required in the present appeal. 5. We have gone through the impugned order and the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court.
In the circumstances of the present case, the quantum appears to be no excessive. 6. Considering the fact that the respondent-wife is also taking care of her child, we do not find any merits in the present appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. 7. The amount already deposited in compliance of the interim order, the same shall be liable to be adjusted in final arrears, if any. 8. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 34-PKS/Mohan Kishan
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.