SANDHYA SINGH Vs. MAJ SANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. K. Gupta learned counsel for applicant wife, and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, senior advocate for the opposite party-husband.

(2.) This is wife's revision against the judgment dated 14.1.2002 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 1) Aligarh, by which she has been awarded only Rs. 3,000 towards the cost of litigation. The trial court has refused to award maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) claimed by her @ Rs. 5,000 per month, in the divorce petition initiated by her husband, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act in the Family Court at Jodhpur. In pursuance of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the divorce petition was transferred to the Court of District Judge, Aligarh, and was assigned to the Additional District Judge (Court No. 1), where it is pending. The applicant filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, for maintenance pendente lite, with the allegation that she does not have any independent income. Her husband is a Major in the Indian Army with an income of about Rs. 20,000 per month. She also claimed expenses of travelling from Aligarh to Jodhpur via Delhi and a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month towards interim maintenance. The application was opposed by the husband on the ground that she had applied for maintenance to the Headquarters Northern Command, which has awarded, a part of his salary as maintenance to her. The applicant has admitted in her additional counter-affidavit that under the Army Rules, she is getting Rs. 1,584 as 10% of her husband's salary, in pursuance of order dated 13.8.1999 with effect from 6.4.1999. She has not received any other amount from the petitioner for the last 38 months since the filing of the divorce petition. She denied that she is engaged in any service in Hotel Heritage at Gurgaon. She had taken up a job as teacher in Air Force School, Jaisalmer from July, 1997 to September, 1998 which has no relevance thereafter. She further stated that she does not possess National Saving Certificate as the said savings have already been invested during the course of litigation. The car given in dowry was sold by the husband and that the husband is operating a Locker in the Bank at Jaisalmer. She denied that her husband is getting only 6,106 after all deductions and that in fact he is getting salary of Rs. 20,000 approximately.