AJAY MEHRA Vs. POONAM MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the respondent in these proceedings claim litigation expenses The question of maintenance pendente lite is subject matter of the main-petition and for that reason she has not made any fresh claim here. In so far as litigation expenses are concerned, the plea is that her income earlier was enough to meet her requirements but now there is an additional plea that she is out of employment since April 1991. That fact is disputed by the petitioner. The certificate of termination of service has been filed only with the rejoinder and I am informed that the respondent has also filed in the trial Court an application for enhancement of maintenance based on this very plea of termination of employment. It is stated that such an application has been filed and even notice has been served and the petitioner has filed a reply.

(2.) One of the basic grievance in this revision petition made by the petitioner is that the documentary evidence placed on record by him has not been properly taken into consideration by the trial Court, which fact is being disputed by the respondent.

(3.) In view of the fresh application having been filed by the respondent claiming enhancement, the matter is an a way before the trial Court because of an application having been filed by the respondent for enhancement. This revision petition in a way becomes infractuous because the trial Court is bound to pass a fresh order in respect to the maintenance pendente lite payable to the respondent.