DEVI SINGH ALIAS DAYALA Vs. PRAKASH BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings arising under the Hindu Marriage Act and initiated by the non-applicant/plaintiff, she made an application under Sec. 24 of the Act for grant of monthly interim alimony and expenses of the proceedings. The main ground on which the application was opposed was that the marriage itself was void as at that time the applicant (defendant in the original proceedings) was already married and had a wife living. The learned District judge has observed that the non-applicant was married to the applicant in accordance with the caste-custom. Apart from the question of correctness or otherwise of that finding, it is not denied that the non applicant/plaintiff was living with the applicant husband as his wife. The question is not free from difficulty and can be resolved only after the parties have led evidence thereon and a detailed enquiry is made in that behalf. At present, it is sufficient that the non-applicant has alleged that she is the wife of the applicant and that she had been living; with the applicant as such for a number of years and gave birth to two children. I do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the learned District judge that on the allegation and the Prima facie proof that the non-applicant is the wife of the applicant, the application under Sec. 24 of the Act was maintainable.

(2.) As to the quantum of interim alimony awarded, I am of opinion that the impugned order calls for interference. The amount of monthly interim alimony appears to be excessive. Only upon some entry in the khasra, learned District Judge has found that the applicant is possessed of 22 acres of land. The applicant's contention is that the entire holding, which is alleged to be his exclusive property, is the joint-family property in which he has only a fraction of share and he will not be entitled to more than 6 acres of land. The District judge has not given a very definite findings as to the actual land owned by the applicant. Apart from the entry in the khasra, no other evidence has been mentioned. A copy of the khasra, was shown to me and from that it is not clear whether the entire land is exclusively held by the applicant. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the applicant owns 22 acres of land. One has, therefore, to proceed on the applicant's own admission that he owns only 6 acres of land. On the non-applicant's own showing, the income from this land cannot be more than Rs. 7,000.00 per year. That being so, a sum of Its. 150.00 per month shall be the just amount which the applicant should be made to pay to the non-applicant during the pendency of the proceedings as interim alimony under Sec. 24 of the Act. The learned District judge has awarded Rs. 200.00 per month and his order has to be modified.

(3.) Apart from this, the learned District judge has not mentioned a definite amount which is to be awarded to the non-applicant as expenses for the proceedings although it has been said that she is so entitled. I, therefore, direct that the applicant shall pay to the non-applicant in addition to the interim monthly alimony, a sum of Rs. 300.00 towards the expenses of the proceedings.