NARENDRA VIDYADHAR SARDESAI Vs. SHAILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order passed below Ex. 7,in Hindu Marriage Petition (HMP) No. 117/1990, the 4th Joint Civil Judge,Senior Division, awarded maintenance pendente lite to the respondent -wife atthe rate of Rs. 3000/ - per month from the date of the application and Rs. 3000/ -as costs of the litigation. Both the parties have challenged the said impugnedorder by filing Civil Revision Application No. 1206 of 1991 (by the husbaad) original petitioner and Cr.A. No. 149 of 1992 (by the wife) - original respondent. While deciding both these matters, the original petitioner is styled asthe applicant while original respondent No. is styled as the non -applicant.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties tookplace on 15th December. 1967 and the parties have a son by name Pranav aged about 22 years and daughter Miss Gouri aged about 21 years (vide theiraffidavits pages 63 and 69). For some years everything was going on smoothly between the parties. The applicant is highly qualified radiologist with all necessary equipments, X -ray machine including computer The non -applicant is also educated having passed her B.Sc Microbiology from BombayUniversity. Even before the marriage, she was working in the milk schemeand other places at Bombay. In HMP No. 117/90, the applicant has askedfor dissolution of the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on the groundof cruelty and desertion also. By effecting the amendment, the, petitionerhas added one more ground to the petition. It is alleged that the non -applicant is leading adulterous life and had illicit relations especially with respondent No. even prior to 1989. However, at this stage, it is not necessary to take into consideration these allegations because by filing separate civil revision application the non -applicant has challenged the said amendment by the trial Judge.

(3.) IT is further contended that she has no house of her own atBombay nor having any income. She needs Rs. 7,000/ - p.m. by way ofmaintenance. She is required to spend Rs. 3,000/ -p.m. by way of residenceas paying guest. She has to spend on account of conveyance, the applicant is duty bound to supply the vehicle to her and in the alternative toprovide Rs. 3500/ - p.m. by way of conveyance charges and miscellaneousexpenses. She is suffering from physical disorders and scifiea. When shewas residing at Akola with the applicant, she. being the Doctor's wife, she wasgetting all medical aid free of costs from the Other Doctors. However, nowshe is required to spend Rs. 500/ - p.m. at the minimum for medical treatment.She further claimed Rs. 5,000/ -by way of expenses for the litigation, travelling charges etc; for attending the case. In respect of financial position ofthe applicant she has contended that the applicant is earning more thanRs. 15,000/ -p,m. and he is living luxuriously and depriving her even of basicamenities of life.