KALIBEN KALABHAI DESAI Vs. ALABHAI KARAMSHIBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 115 of CPC by wife directed against the order of the learned 5th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.) Mahesana on her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.P. No. 53 of 1998. Under the impugned order, the learned Trial Court awarded the interim maintenance to the wife petitioner of the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. and her minor son Rahul at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. Towards the litigation expenses, Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error or illegality in awarding a meagre sum of maintenance to the wife and her minor child. In his submission, the respondent is a practising advocate. He has a good practice but this meagre amount of maintenance has been awarded. His earnings are about Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- p.m. from his practice and further he has regular income from the agriculural land. Alternatively, it is contended that even if we go by the findings of the Court below where the respondent's income was taken to be Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- p.m., the amount of maintenance awarded is certainly towards the lower side. It has next been contended that the respondent is an advocate and expected to know law but he has not produced any evidence in support of his income. In the absence of any evidence, his income disclosed by the wife should have been accepted. Reclaim of litigation expenses, the counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the high expenses of the litigation these days, Rs. 7.000/- is a reasonable sum which should have been awarded.

(3.) On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent strongly opposed this revision application. In his submision, the amount of maintenance awarded is towards the higher side. Reclaim of the litigation expenses is concerned, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled for free legal aid and she chould not have been awarded any amount under this head. She is entitled for free legal aid, should have approached to the authority concerned rather than to engage an advocate and put heavy burden of litigation expenses on the shoulder of the respondent.