HEMA Vs. S LAKSHMANA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). They were married on 24-8-1975 and lived together till December. 1979. Thereafter, they have been living apart. Each has his/her own explanation for the present state of affairs.

(2.) Husband filed H. M. O. P. 4/1983 seeking divorce under S.13 of the Act and the wife filed written statement resisting the petition. On 5-7-1983 she filed I. A. 957/1983 claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and also Rs. 2,000/- as expenses for conducting the case from the husband. Husband resisted the application and the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the application directing the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from 5-7-1983 and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as expenses of the proceedings. The wife, being dissatisfied with the quantum awarded, has filed this revision.

(3.) Husband is a well placed businessman in Mattancherry. He as well is his wife have affluent background and belong to trading families. Evidently, the wife has lost her father. She is at present living with her relations namely mother, uncle and brother and is dependent wholly on her uncle and brother for eking out her livelihood. According to her, she has no income at all the husband alleged, and this allegation has been accepted by the court below, that a sum of Rs. 22,000/- is lying in fixed deposit in the wife's name in a bank and that a piece of land has been purchased in her name. The wife alleged that the records relating to fixed deposit are with the husband and therefore she has no control over it. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the records have been submitted before court. The fact remains hat the fixed deposit has matured and interest has ceased to run. This cannot be a source of income at present. There is no case that the piece of land standing in her name fetches any income. Thus, the court below proceeded on the basis that the wife has no income of her own.