ASHA ALIAS DARSHAN Vs. JAI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jai Dayal filed a petition for annulment of marriage against the present petitioner Smt.Asha under Section 12(i)(b) read with Section 5 (ii)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said petition the present petitioner filed an application seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short H.M.Act). The Additional District Judge vide order dated 9th December,1994 while disposing of her application awarded pendente lite maintenance of Rs.1,000.00 per month from the date of her application dated 11th November,1993 and litigation expenses of Rs.2,200.00 .

(2.) It is against this order the petitioner has felt aggreived, inter alia, on the ground that the amount awarded is too less. The respondent husband has various businesses wherefrom he is earning Rs.18,000.00 per month. Those are M/s Gogia General Store situated in a thickly populated merchandised area of New Govind Pura, Delhi. He has also got Kerosene Oil Depot. Further he is doing the business of selling the Ayurvedic medicines in Trans Yamuna. From all these businesses he is earning Rs.18,000.00 per month. Keeping in view the status of the respondent she claimed Rs.3,000.00 per month as interim maintenance and Rs.5,500.00 as litigation expenses. In reply to her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act the respondent husband took the plea that he was to maintain his aged parents whom he was legally liable to maintain and that in a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the matter having been amicably settled between the parties whereby petitioner agreed to receive Rs.400.00 per month as maintenance. She is not entitled to claim anything more. It was in this backdrop that the impugned order was passed after taking into consideration all the averments and arguments advanced at the bar.

(3.) In this revision petition the main contention of the petitioner is that the Trial Court has ignored the income of the respondent from other sources, namely, the Kerosene Oil Depot and the sale of Ayurvedic midicines. Moreover, no accounts of M/s Gogia General Store had been produced. The income having been withheld, adverse presumption ought to have been drawn against the respondent. In this regard Ms.Geeta Luthra appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of our own High Court in the case of Smt.Renu Jain Vs. Mahavir Prashad Jain, AIR 1987 Delhi 43 where the Court held that:-