RATTAN BALA Vs. PRAHLAD SWARUP AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 19.9.1996 by which an application moved by the petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses. has been disposed of allowing litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- but refusing the grant of maintenance pendente lite.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner-wife herein is facing a petition of divorce filed by the husband. She made an application under section 24 of the Act with the averments that the respondent-husband has income from various sources viz interest income of Rs.1,000.00 per month on the money lent by him; further income of:Rs.200/~ as interest on bank deposits, rental in6ome of Rs.50.00 per month. He has also received a sum of Rs.24,952.00 from LIC; Rs. 5883/35p plus Rs.2186/15p from Nagrik Sehkari Bank and has also received pay of the son of the parties amounting to Rs.327 .70p and has an insurance cover worth Rs.25,000.00. The averments were denied by the husband and on the contrary he pleaded that the applicant wife is a trained accountant and , was employed with Takshila Electronics; M/s.Suri Brothers and Technico India as full time Accountant. She earlier filed a case for recovery of back wages and reinstatement which is stated to be pending in the High Court. The applicant-wife is stated to have received certain amounts from him (respondent) as well as from her parents and she is also making money by doing some work at home. The applicant is stated to be in possession of Jewellary worth Rs.1 lac and is living with the son of the parties who is a Chartered Accountant .and is fully maintaining her. It was also stated that he was turned out of the house. In the rejoinder, the applicant-wife admitted receipt of a sum of Rs.16904.00 from the husband but clarified that the said money had been spent in the purchase of the house and for its repair. It was, however, denied that she was gainfully employed and was having any income.

(3.) The learned trial court on a consideration of the respective pleas has refused to grant any interim maintenance to the applicant-wife primarily on the ground that she has never been a destitute in as much as she was living in the house belonging to the husband,and with her son who is a qualified Chartered Accountant and even otherwise she being a trained Accountant and therefore, was capable of earning. With regard to the income of the husband the trial court observed that it was not possible to assess the income,of the husband.