SMT. SHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated Aug. 7, 1985 passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, by which application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short 'the Hindu Marriage Act', moved by the defendant-revisionist has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent Shailendra Kumar Shukla filed a suit for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage which had taken place with the revisionist-defendant on 17-2-1972, on the ground that the defendant-revisionist is leading adulterous life with her Jeeja - Sri S.N. Trivedi, who was posted as Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow. This petition was contested by the defendant-revisionist refuting all the said allegations regarding desertion and adultery. An application was moved by the defendant-revisionist under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, asserting that she has no independent source of income to support herself and her child nor she can meet the expenses of the litigation. It was also stated that the plaintiff's monthly income is about Rs. 900.00. She thus prayed that she be awarded pendente lite a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500.00 and also Rs. 600.00 to meet the litigation expenses. This application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent who asserted that it is wrong to say that the defendant has no independent source of income or that she is unable to maintain herself and the child or to meet the litigation expenses. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that his monthly income is Rs. 477/- and not Rs. 900.00 was asserted by the defendant. It was thus contended that the demand is also excessive.

(3.) The main ground on which the application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent was that since the defendant has deserted plaintiff on her own accord and is living an adulterous life and so he is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite nor she is entitled to get any amount for meeting the litigation expenses.