P. RAMPRASAD Vs. SINDOORI R.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act') arises as soon as any proceeding is instituted under the Act and the condition for the exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is that the applicant should not have any independent income sufficient for her to support necessary expenses of the proceeding. If that condition is satisfied, the Court has jurisdiction and power to pass an order to direct the opposite party to pay expenses of the proceeding and direct monthly maintenance during the proceeding which the Court seems to be reasonable. The grant of relief under Section 24 of the Act is neither dependent on the merits of the petition or success or failure of the petition. The reason behind Section 24 of the Act for payment pendente lite is that the marriage when admitted it is the duty of the spouse to maintain the indigent person. The proceeding under Section 24 of the Act never provides any authorisation to a Court to take into consideration the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties in the pleadings relating to merit of the claim for a decree sought for in the proceeding filed before Court.

(2.) The order for maintenance pendente lite and cost of proceeding can, as the initial words of the section clearly states be made in any proceedings under the Act, which would include proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, decree for judicial separation, decree for divorce or nullity of void and voidable marriages. This is the law laid down by this Court in Shiva Kumar T.A. v. Smt. Pushpa Rekha, 2002 5 KarLJ 393.

(3.) The facts that petitioner-husband is a practicing Advocate, appointed as a Central Government Standing Counsel, having put in 10 years at the Bar, and represents several multinational companies as well as several highly esteemed clients, and is the owner of immovable properties both residential and vacant land which command a high market value in view of the urbanisation of Bangalore, are not in dispute. The Family Court having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that the respondent-wife is not employed and has no income of her own, keeping with the social status of the parties, passed the order for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. Applying the aforesaid observations of this Court to the facts of the case, this petition by the husband challenging the order dated 9-1-2014 Annexure-A in MC No. 262 of 2013 instituted by the respondent-wife, directing payment of interim maintenance of 15,000/- and litigation expenses of 5,000/- is without merit and is accordingly rejected.