NISHAN SINGH Vs. BHUPENDRA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the husband against grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses of proceedings to the wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter the 'Act').

(2.) The respondent has filed a petition under section 13 read with section 27 of the Act for dissolution of marriage and for disposal of property presented at or about the time of marriage. She also made an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. This application was resisted on the ground the relationship of husband and wife had come to an end in puisuarce. In ex parte decree for divorce granted by Delhi Court on the basis of application presented for the purpose by the petitioner-husband. It also contended that the petitioner had no means of income even to support himself and that the respondent had independent income from sewing, knitting and embroidery and therefore, she was not entitled to any pendente lite maintenance or expenses of proceedings. By its impugned order, the Court below has allowed the application of the respondent and granted her interim maintenance and litigation expenses. Hence, this revision has been filed by the husband.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Court below was based on the affidavit of the respondent. The petitioner was not given proper opportunity to rebut the case of the respondent. He could not have filed a counter affidavit in the absence of a specific order of the Court under order 19, Rule I C.P.C. Before making an order under section 24 of the Act, the Court below was bound to hold an enquiry and to record a finding that the respondent had no independent source of income. This having not been done, the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he relied on two decisions of this Court in the cases of Shyamabai Vs. Ganesh Prasad 1982 MPWN Note 232 and Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Asha, 1982 MPWN Note 302 . It was also contended that in view of the fact that no relationship of husband and wife existed after the decree of divorce granted by the Delhi Court, the application was not maintainable.