D THANKARAJ Vs. M C PUSHPA ROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Parties are Nadar Christians governed by the provisions of the Divorce Act (for short 'the Act'). Respondent filed O.P, 25/84 seeking a decree for judicial separation under Sec.23 of the Act. O.P. was filed on 8-2-1984 and the summons was served on the husband on 28-5-1984. Pending O.P., wife filed an application seeking an order of alimony pendente lite. The application was opposed by the husband who but was allowed by the Court directing the husband to pay alimony at the rate of Rs.140/- per month from the date of service of summons on the husband. It is this order which is now challenged in revision.

(2.) Parties raised conflicting pleas regarding each other's means. On the evidence placed before him, the learned District Judge held that the wife has no means to maintain herself, that the husband derives a net income of Rs.600/- per annum from immovable property and pay and allowances to the extent of Rs.668/- per month as seen in Ext.B1 out of which allowance was given for Rs.10/- per month deducted by way of subscription to L.I.C. thus, total net income was estimated at Rs.708/-. Parties have a child aged 3 years attending nursery school. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the District Judge fixed the quantum of alimony at Rs.140/- which is slightly less than the ceiling of twenty per cent fixed, under Sec.36 of the Act,

(3.) The only contention urged at the Bar by learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in estimating the net income from salary, the learned District Judge erred in not giving deduction for a sum of Rs.400/- p. m. being deducted for payment in respect of a house construction loan. Ext.B1 salary certificate does not refer to any such deduction. The husband examined as R.W.1 made it clear that there is no deduction as such on this account. According to him, he had taken a loan from a co-operative society and has to pay instalments monthly. This is contrary to what he stated in his counter to the effect that this amount is deducted at source from his salary. This is a fact which could have been proved by producing satisfactory documentary evidence. No such evidence was produced. In these circumstances, the question of allowing any such deduction does not arise.