PURUSHOTTAMDAS Vs. MEERADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order granting maintenance to the original respondent/wife (non -applicant herein) and her son, pendente lite, is the subject -matter of this revision. By the instant order, the Trial Court awarded Rs. 2,000/ - per month each in favour of the wife and the son. The Trial Court also awarded Rs. 2,500/ - towards cost of the litigation.

(2.) THE present applicant Purushottamdas filed a divorce petition before the Trial Court on various grounds. This petition was filed on 20.11.1990. The wife appeared and resisted the petition by filing a written -statement. However, thereafter, the wife came out with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed in August, 1992. This application came to be opposed by the husband. The wife had claimed in her application that she was driven out by the husband and she was required to stay separately alongwith her son Ram who was about 11 years old. She also contended that it was on account of the attitude of the husband that she could not cohabit with him. She contended that she was staying separately and had no source of earning for her livelihood and subsistance. She alleged that the husband is a wealthy businessman earning about Rs. 20,000/ - per month. He having a business of ready made garments shop called 'friends', he being the owner thereof. She prayed for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - per month for herself and Rs. 3,000/ - per month for her son. Thus, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 8,000/ - per month. She also pointed out that the husband owned a palatial building worth about fifty lakhs rupees. She also prayed for the expenses of litigation and put forth a demand of Rs. 10,000/ - for the same.

(3.) THE Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The wife supported her application by way of her affidavit. The reply of the husband was also supported with by an affidavit. The statement made at the Bar in this Court, that the wife was called for cross -examination on the basis of her affidavit, while it is an admitted fact that the husband did not offer any oral evidence by entering the witness -box. He seems to have filed certain receipts, etc., to suggest that he was contributing towards the maintenance of the child by paying his school -fees, etc. The Trial Court found fault with the application but not to the extent of the prayer made in it. The Trial Court has granted Rs. 2,000/ - per month for the wife and Rs. 2,000/ - per month for the son. Thus, the total maintenance of Rs. 4,000 / - per month is granted. The Trial Court has also granted Rs. 2,500/ - towards the costs of the litigation.