NISHAN SINGH Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the request of the counsel for the parties arguments were heard for final disposal of the revision petition.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against an order of learned Additional District Judge dated 12.8.1998 by which, in a petition for divorce, on an application being moved by the respondent wife. he has fixed the interim maintenance of the respondent wife under Section 24 of the H.M.Act (in short the Act) @ Rs.2500.00 p.m. and of the minor child living with the respondent wife Rs.1000.00 p.m. w.e.f. 08.1.1998 besides allowing the expenses of the proceedings at Rs. 2200/- to her. Along with the revision petition, an application is also filed for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the around of cruelty and desertion by her. This petition was contested by the respondent wife. She also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for Brant of interim maintenance and the expenses of the proceeding to her. It was alleged that she had no movable or immovable property and had no independent source, of income excepting that she had been granted maintenance @Rs.300/- p.m. for her and @Rs.300/- p.m. for her minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by a Metropolitan Magistrate. Even the amount of maintenance, so fixed, has not been paid by the petitioner and the execution proceedings are pending. The petitioner has also challenged that order in a revision petition, which is pendina before an Additional Sessions Judge. It was further alleaed ; that the petitioner had 1/5th share in the agricultural land. particulars of which were given in sub-para (i) of para-4 and 1/8th share in the aaricultural land. which was detailed in sub-para (iii) of para-4. Besides, he was employed with a concern in Delhi on a salary of Rs.4000/- p.m. He also owned tractors, buffaloes and cattles of the value of Rs. 5.00 lacs. He was also earning Rs.3000.00 p.m. as interest. There is nobody exceptinag the respondent and her dauahter Ms. Harmeet. who is 9 years old, dependent upon the petitioner. She alleged that the total income of the petitioner was Rs.25000/- p.m., as such. she was entitled to the maintenance of Rs.8000.00 p.m. He should also be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as expenses of the proceeding. The application is supported by her affidavit.

(3.) The petitioner resisted this application and made counter allegations that the respondent was employed as a typist with M/s Sheetal Pawan Agency Private Limited. which job was given up by her two and a half years back on 06.7.1995 when her statement was recorded before the court with a view to claim maintenance from the petitioner. He admitted that he has not paid maintenance amount fixed by the Magistrate. As reaards his own sources of income, the petitioner alleged that earlier he had a share in the agricultural land. as mentioned in sub-paras(i) and (iii) of para-4 of the application but it was mortgaged by him for meeting the expenses. He lost all his property in the litigation with the respondent. He denied that he was employed in Delhi and was earning Rs.4000.00 p.m. Re alieaed that he was living with his brothers and was dependant upon them for food and lodging. Owning of tractors, buffaloes. catties etc. was also denied. Similarly, it was also denied that he had income from interest, as alleaed. Other allegations and claims of the respondent made in the application were also refuted.