V. CHANDRA Vs. DR. S. VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in M.F.A. 626 of 1983 is the petitioner herein. This is a petition filed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner prays that the court may order the appellant in the appeal (the respondent in the CMP) to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 at least to meet the expenses of the proceedings. The petition is supported by an affidavit dated 30th Jan. 1984. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. They were married on 23-5-1976. A daughter was born to them on 16-8-1978. The husband (respondent) filed O.P. (H.M.A.) 303 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, for dissolution of the marriage on many grounds. After exhaustive review of the relevant facts and the law on the subject, the learned Subordinate judge held that the husband (petitioner in the O.P.) is not entitled to get a decree for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner in the O.P. (husband) has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 626 of 1983 from the aforesaid judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, dated 19-9-1983. Pending the appeal the above petition has been filed by the wife (respondent in O.P. (H.M.A.) 303 of 1982) praying for an order awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 towards necessary costs of this proceeding.

(2.) Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to the following effect :

(3.) The respondent (husband), is a doctor; he is getting income from salary as well as from private practice; he is a partner in a Firm conducted by himself and his father; he is an income-tax assessee, and he has got immovable properties. Even according to the respondent his income per month is Rs. 4642.25, though, according to the petitioner (wife) his income is more than a lakh of rupees per year. The respondent also states that the petitioner's total income is Rs. 24,000.00 per annum. This is no doubt disputed by the petitioner. But all the same, it is evident that as against the petitioner's (wife's) income of about Rs. 2,000/ per mensem, the respondent (husband) has admittedly an income of Rs. 4,642.25 per mensem. As stated, the petitioner has to maintain herself and the child and also she should educate the child. Both parties were present on one of the hearing dates. I questioned both of them. The petitioner (wife) expressed her readiness to join the husband. But the husband has his own reasons to pursue the litigation. On a consideration of the overall circumstances of the case. I am of opinion that regard being had to the nature of the litigation, the position and status of the parties and the comparative income of the parties and the expenses they have to meet, the independent income of the wife is not sufficient for the necessary expenses to be incurred for these proceedings. In view of the controversy involved in the proceedings and the nature of the questions involved, proper legal assistance is necessary for the petitioner. Taking into account all the circumstances and bearing in mind the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 1 am of opinion that the respondent husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 to the petitioner (wife) towards her expenses for these proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. The said sum of Rs. 5,000.00 shall be paid to the petitioner on or before 12th April 1984.