KAMAL SETH Vs. SAROJ SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) NONE appears for any of the parties. Since the revision petition is of the year 1989, it is being taken up today and finally disposed of. The respondent-wife moved an application under Sections 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente tite. After going into various accounts submitted before the Trial Court, the learned Additional District Judge has come to the find ing by its impugned order dated 14.12.88 that award of sums of Rs. l,000.00 per month to wards the maintenance of the applicant wife,and Rs.500.00 towards the educational expenses and maintenance of the child Miss Heena Seth are justified. The Trial Court has given a detailed order considering the income tax returns and the fact that the petitioner was in business and had some rental income and the petitioner-wife was living in one room of her matrimonial home. The main plea of the petitioner in the revision petition is that the impugned order could not have been passed against him after the withdrawal of the main petition filed by him under Section 13( I ) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This plea is without substance as it is not stated at all whether after the withdrawal of the petition the wife and the daughter were being maintained by him. Irrespective of the withdrawal of the main petition by the petitioner- husband his liability towards maintenance of his wife subsists and her right cannot be defeated by this hyper-technical plea. There is, thus, no cause of interference with the order of the Additional District Judge dated 14.12.88 in H.M.A. No. 166/86. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Revision Petition dismissed with costs. fix his own remuneration. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.