NAVJOT KAUR Vs. AJEET SINGH PHULL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing of the orders dated 12-3-2001 passed on I. A. Ill, and the order dated 19-8-2000 passed on the memo (Annexures-G and H respectively) in M. C. No. 307 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows. The respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act' ). In the said petition the petitioner who is the wife has filed an application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. This application was contested by the respondent-husband by way of filing statement of objections. Before passing any order on the said application, the respondent had filed a memo for withdrawal of the main petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court passed orders rejecting the application for maintenance and litigation expenses and also permitted the respondent to withdraw the main petition by separate orders dated 12-3-2001. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) IN the application LA. III, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 40,000/-, towards litigation expenses. According to the petitioner, the respondent-husband has deserted her after demanding dowry and left for USA without intimating her. It is further stated that the husband is working as software engineer and earning $ 70,000/- per annum which is equivalent to Rs 31,50,000/ -. The further case of the petitioner is that she has no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the litigation expenses of the proceedings instituted by her husband. The said claim was objected by the respondent on various grounds. The Court below rejected the claim for maintenance on the ground that the petitioner-wife being an educated lady is capable of securing employment and therefore it is not for her to sit idle and expect her husband to pay maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. Insofar as the litigation expenses is concerned, the reasons given by the learned Judge is that as she could get legal aid by approaching the Legal Aid Board, she is not entitled to ask for litigation expenses.