ATAR SINGH Vs. JASODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yesterday the matter was taken up and order was passed. After the order was transcribed but before it could be signed, the matter was mentioned today by Mr. D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the revisionist when the record was available in this Court.

(2.) By consent of the parties, the matter was taken up and was treated as on day's list. The matter is reheard today.

(3.) Mr. D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist points out from the Impugned order that the learned trial court has come to a finding that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the wife to sustain the allegation that the revisionist has any income. The learned trial court has also not come to a particular finding that what is the income of the revisionist. On the other hand, the learned trial court has suo motu arrived at a conclusion that sum of Rs. 600 per month as maintenance would be Justified. According to him there is no basis for this finding. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained. He then contends that revisionist admittedly was a student, which has not been disputed and, therefore, he cannot pay the maintenance of the wife. He had relied on Rule 17, Appendix I being Rules under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, framed by the Allahabad High Court under the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956. Relying on the said rule, Mr. Mathur contends that every application for any of the reliefs mentioned in Sections 24, 25 (1) and 26 of the Act, is to be supported by an affidavit stating the average monthly incomes of the petitioner and the respondent, the source of the incomes, particulars of other movable and immovable property owned by them and the names and ages of the persons dependent on the petitioner and the respondent. According to him. the application filed by the wife did not contain such particulars, though it is only mentioned that the petitioner's monthly income is Rs. 5,000 but it has not disclosed either the movable or Immovable properly owned by the petitioner or ages of the persons dependent on him. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. He has also relied on the decision in the case of Rqjambal v. Murugappan, AIR 1985 Mad 284, in order to sustain the finding that if the petitioner has no income, then he cannot be made to pay maintenance.