ANOOP KAPUR Vs. NEELU KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 789/95 has been filed by the husband, petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 21.7.1995 of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. No. 429/94 fixing interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) at Rs. 5,000.00 per month for his wife, respondent herein, as well as his one son and a daughter and directing payment of a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 towards the litigation expenses and reimbursement of medical expenses of his mentally retarded daughter. Civil Revision No. 916/95 has been filed by the wife questioning the impugned order dated 21.7.1995. This order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of these revision petitions are that the husband (petitioner) brought an application under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Act against his wife (respondent) in the Court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi. The respondent made an application u/Sec. 24 of the Act that she having no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of litigation, the petitioner may be ordered to pay her a sum of Rs. 15,000 / - per mensem as interim maintenance for herself as well as for her two children, one of whom is a mentally retarded daughter, and a further sum of Rs. 15,000.00 by way of litigation expenses. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that he had no source of income and the respondent had been earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month and also maintaining a car besides FDRs of Rs. 30,000/ - in a bank. On a consideration of the material available on the record, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge came to the conclusion that neither the husband nor the wife has any current income but the husband is a member of an affluent joint-Hindu Family and the said family had entered into an agreement of sale of one of its property for a consideration of more than Rs. one crore. He accordingly passed the impugned order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no source of income and the respondent has been earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month from her business and also maintaining a car besides fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000.00 in a bank, the impugned order fixing the interim alimony at Rs. 5,000.00 per mensern is not sustainable. Learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contested the above contentions and submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner's monthly income is more than Rs. 25,000.00 per month, and the respondent has to maintain one son (aged 19 years) and a mentally retarded daughter (aged about 16 years), the interim alimony ought to have been fixed at Rs. 15,000.00 per month.