KULBHUSHAN SEHGAL Vs. SUNITA SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition, petitioner/husband has challenged impugned order dated 22. 02. 2008 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi on an application of respondent/wife under Section 24 of HMA, in the petition for annulment of marriage of petitioner/husband, wherein interim maintenance @ Rs. 3200/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 12,000/- have been granted to her.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts leading to the filing of present petition are that petitioner/husband is aged about 77 years. He got married with respondent on 28. 12. 2006 according to Hindu rights and customs. As per petitioner, it is his third marriage. Petitioner has alleged that his first wife died in the year 1996 and second wife died in the year 2002. The status of respondent/wife was widow at the time of marrying petitioner. The allegations of the petitioner are that respondent/wife had concealed factum of having children from the previous husband while marrying the petitioner and on that ground he has filed petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage act seeking annulment of marriage.

(3.) IN the aforesaid petition, respondent/wife moved an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Respondent/wife has denied that she made concealment as is alleged. According to her, husband is getting a pension of rs. 12,000/- per month. He also got handsome amount at the time of retirement. She has alleged that he is indulged in money lending business and getting an interest of Rs. 20,000/- per month and is also working as a property dealer with one Mr. Ravinder Vohra and is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from the said business. He has also got various FDR's in his name and has got jewellery worth lakhs. As per respondent/wife, petitioner is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month in all. By way of application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, she had claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses. Petitioner/husband has opposed the said application by filing reply wherein he has alleged that he is only getting pension of Rs. 6,700/- per month and he is not having any other source of income as is alleged by wife. He has alleged that respondent/wife has got sufficient money with her by way of share of her deceased husband and is not entitled for any maintenance.