MANDAKINI VIJAYRAO Vs. VIJAYRAO KRISHNARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 20-11-1987, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in Hindu Marriage Case No. 36 of 1987, thereby awarding Rs. 300/- as maintenance allowance and Rs. 500/- as legal expenses to the respondent-husband, on his application under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act (for short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel, it would be necessary to note certain facts. The petitioner Mandakini, who is serving as a Nurse, had filed a suit for divorce. The trial Court, instead of granting a decree for divorce, passed a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act on 29-7-1985. She made an application under Section 13 of the Act, praying for a divorce decree on the ground that there had been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties for a period of more than one year after passing of a decree for judicial separation on 29-7-1985. Respondent-husband while admitting the fact that a decree for judicial separation was passed on 29-7-1985, denied that there had been no resumption of cohabitation and contended that he had been frequenting the petitioner and at times living with her and leading a matrimonial life. He also made an application under section 24 of the Act stating that he was unemployed, having no source of income and depending on the help rendered by his friends and relations. He also alleged that the petitioner, who was serving as a Nurse, was earning Rs. 1200/ per month and she should be ordered to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 1000/- as legal expenses. This prayer was opposed by the petitioner, who alleged that the respondent was a drunkard, he was able to maintain himself and was in fact serving with a Catering Contractor on, the Western Railways.

(3.) THE trial Court by the impugned order awarded Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance allowance and Rs. 500/- as legal expenses to the respondent-husband. It is against this order that the wife has preferred this petition.