C KRISHNAN Vs. PONMUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is by the husband who was the respondent in I.A.No.254 of 1990 and the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.168 of 1989. The H.M.O.P. is for divorce of the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. While the H.M.O.P. was pending, the abovesaid I.A.No.254 of 1990 was filed by the wife under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming interim maintenance from the date of the said O.P. at the rate of Rs.750 per month and for litigation expenses to the extent of Rs.1,000. The court below has granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.650 per month from the date of O.P. and has also granted the other prayer for litigation expenses as claimed. Against the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed by the husband.

(2.) AFTER going through the judgment, though I was not inclined to admit the C.R.P. on the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that the grant of interim maintenance from the said date of the original petition, viz., August, 1989 was bad in law and the court had no power grant maintenance from the date, particularly when the I.A. had been filed in about August, 1990 only. So, I ordered notice of motion on 19.6.1991 and the respondent represented by counsel. He submitted that courts had held in very many cases that the court could grant such interim maintenance from 'the date of service of summons in the main O.P. In the present case, after verification, it was stated that the summons was served 12.9.1989 though the O.P. was filed in August, 1989. So, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that if at all the impugned order could be modified to the effect that the maintenance ordered could be for the period beginning from 12.9.1989, if not from August, 1989, the date when the main O.P. was filed.

(3.) NO doubt in the above referred to Bhanwar Lal v. Kamala Devi, A.I.R. 1983 Raj. the passage above quoted it is stated that there may be cases where the spouse may in justifiable need of interim maintenance during the earlier stages of the matrimonial litigation and may unduly delay the filing of application under Sec.24. Further, the counsel for the petitioner also stressed the point that in the present case, the LA was more than ten months after the summons was served in the main O.P. But, I do not that this can be considered as a very long delay. That apart, in the affidavit in support LA, the wife states that three years after the marriage (which took place in 1953), she driven out of the house. After stating so in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, she says as follows: "I state that from that onwards I am suffering without food and proper dress, I have means to maintain myself. In spite of several pan-chayats and mediators the respondent refused to take back unless dowry demand is complied with."As against this allegation. I only find a general and vague denial in the counter statement filed by the husband as follows: "The petitioner has means to defend the case and also to maintain herself." So, it cannot also be said that the wife was having means earlier to the filing of the said in the light of the abovesaid allegations in the affidavit and counter, as stated above, also been observed in the above referred to Smt. Sobhana Sen v. Amar Kanta, A.I.R. Cal. 455 at 457, as follows: "It is well-known that orders for maintenance are passed even at a very late stage proceedings.".