RAJENDRAKUMAR JAIN Vs. SUDHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of C. R. No. 22 of 1990 and C R. No. 28 of 90 (Smt. Sudha Jain v. Rajenderakumar Jain) filed by the applicant and non-applicant in CS No. 38 of 88 (HMA) passed by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore. On an application filed by the wife Smt. Sudha Jain under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act directing the payment of maintenance allowance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of passing of the order and Rs. 1000/- as expenses of the suit. The applicant in C. R. No. 22 of 90 is aggrieved by the rate at which the alimony pendente lite is granted, whereas the applicant in C. R. No 28 of 1990 is aggrieved by the order directing the payment of the alimony from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Sugandhi argues that the order impugned is contrary to the record of the case. From the evidence on Record it is manifest that the applicant has no independent source of income and he is dependent on the other members of his family for his own maintenance. Therefore, the Court has erred in allowing the maintenance on the basis of he amount which according to the lower Court, is spent on the members of the joint family per month. According to Shri Sugandhi even this fact is also not borne out from the record that this amount is being spent by the members of the joining Hindu family.

(3.) ON the other hand Shri T. R. Gupta learned Counsel for the non-applicant argues that the order impugned is proper and this being a finding of fact it cannot be questioned in a revision petition. Shri Gupta in support of C. R No. 28 of 90 further argues that in the circumstances of the case the order of alimony pendente lite should have been passed from the date of the application and not from the date of order.