CHAITANYAKUMAR HARIKRISHANBHAI BHATT Vs. NALINIBEN C BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband challenges the order passed below applications Ex. 11 and Ex. 15 in H. M. Petition No. 328 of 1988, by the learned City Civil Court Judge, on 19-3-1991, allowing the application Ex. 11 filed by the respondent-wife and directing the petitioner-husband to pay to the respondent Rs. 250.00 per month as interim maintenance for the minor daughter from the date of the petition, i.e., 19-9-1988 till disposal of the petition and Rs. 2,000.00 towards expenses for the litigation. The application filed by the petitionerhusband for maintenance at Ex. 15 was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent-wife on the allegations that she treated him with cruelty and that she had illicit relation with other person. A daughter was born to these parties. She was two years of age on the date of the Application Ex. 11 made by the respondent-wife. In the said application she has stated that she was serving at Poona and had to attend the Court off and on for which she had to incur expenses. In the application she prayed for the expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,000.00 for the litigation and also separately prayed for maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs. 750.00 and for the minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the respondent was serving as a Lecturer and therefore, she was not entitled to any amount by way of expenses for litigation. It was also argued that in an application made by the respondent-wife under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Court could not have awarded any maintenance for the minor child. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decisions in the cases of Akasam Chinna Babu v. Akasam Parbati and Anr., AIR 1967 Ori 163; Bankim Chandra Roy v. Smt. Anjali Roy, AIR 1972 Pat 80 and Puran Chand v. Mst. Kamla Devi, AIR 1981 Jammu and Kashmir 5.