RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SAVITRIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20 6 90 passed by the 9th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Indore in case No. 261 of 1987 under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)

(2.) NON -applicant wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and expenses of litigation in a case filed by the applicant against her for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The Court after examining the parties, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 500/ - month to the non -applicant and Rs. 100/ - per month for the daughter born out of the marriage. Towards the expenses the Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 500/ - in a lump -sum.

(3.) ON perusal of the record and the impugned order it is clear that that assessment of the interim relief by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary. After all, the Court has to decide on the material placed before it, as to whether the interim maintenance could be granted or not and if it has to be granted the quantum. The Court has not separately assessed the need of the wife and he child and there is nothing wrong in it. Ultimately the wife has to maintain the child and she is not going to spend money on the maintenance of the child counting every paisa spent on the child. If the Court has directed a lump -sum of Rs. 600/ -per month for maintenance of the wife and the child and gave break -up as Rs. 500/ - for the wife and Rs. 100/ - for the child, it could not be said that it has acted without jurisdiction and committed material irregularity. There is, therefore, no force in the plea that the Court has granted maintenance at a rate in excess of what was asked for by the wife.