MUKESH PANT Vs. LATA PANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE has been 28 days' delay in preferring this appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. To that, an objection has also been filed. We have considered the objection and the averments made in the application and being satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay, allow the same. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on merit.

(2.) BY the judgment and order under appeal, maintenance pendente lite has been granted in favor of the respondent. It was not the contention before the trial court, nor it is the contention in the present appeal that the respondent had, or has any independent income. Two grievances have been highlighted, namely, incorrect assessment of the income of the appellant and giving of direction for payment of maintenance from the date of making of the application. According to the own -showing of the appellant, his income on 23rd November, 2011, i.e. when the application for maintenance was filed, was Rs. 23,000/ - and the same was increased and then decreased, but not less than Rs. 23,000/ - and the average thereof, even up today, will not be less than Rs. 24,000/ -, as according to the appellant himself, his present income is Rs. 26,000/ -.

(3.) IT is settled law that the quantum of maintenance pendente lite is one -third of the income of the spouse, who is obliged to support the other. Therefore, fixation of maintenance of Rs. 8,000/ - per month is not intertribal. There is no assertion that litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/, directed to be paid, is excessive. The contention that the maintenance should not have been directed from the date of presentation of the application, but should have been directed from the date of the order, is thoroughly misconceived, inasmuch as, it is settled law that an order relates back to the date of presentation of the lis, on which the order has been passed. Further more, and in any event, the obligation to provide for maintenance accrues no sooner the suit is instituted by the other spouse. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere, and dismiss the appeal.