SANGEETA SHARMA Vs. RAJIV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed to impugn the order dated May 13, 1992. passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, by which the application of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of maintenance pendente lite was disposed of. The learned Judge had decided the application after considering the respective contentions of the parties and awarded the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500.00 per moth from the date of filing of the application i.e. May 7, 1990 till the final disposal of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) (i-a)of the Act. The petitione was not awarded any litigation expenses on the ground that her case was being land led by her own Senior, which meant that litigation expenses were negligible.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner las assailed the Order of the Additional District Judge and contended that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1989 and always had ameagre income, which drd not exceed moe than Rs.500.00 per month and presently she is not able to earn even that amount in view of the trauma and frustration of an unhappy marriage. The respondent, on tie other hand, is a well paid Doctor and is earning sufficient income and the enhancemen is, according, justified in the facts & circumstances of the present case. He has futher stated that the Trial Court erred in not awarding the litigation expenses as an inference was drawn against the petitioner that her case was being handled by her Senior and litigation expenses were negligible. He has argued that even in case where no fee is accepted by a counsel, some amount is always spent for travelling and defending the petition for dissolution of marriage, which has been thrust upon her by the respondent on non existent grounds. The petition for dissolution of marriage has since been granted by the court of Shri Brijesh Kumara, Additional District Judge, Delhi and the decree under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hundu Marriage Act has been passed on September 8, 1993. It is evident from perusal of the judgment that the petitioner did not contest the proceedings.

(3.) The only question, which now remains, is the grant of maintenance pendente lite with effect from May 7, 1990 till the date of dissolution of marriage, which took place on September 8.1993.