RAM CHANDRA AGARWALLA Vs. MRUDULA PODDER ALIAS AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUANTUM of interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted in a proceeding filed for dissolution of marriage is the subject -matter of dispute in this revision application.

(2.) THE plaintiff -petitioner has instituted O. S. No. 190 of 1986 (I) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh praying for dissolution of marriage. Stand of the, wife -opposite party 'is that the husband has illegally deserted her and the minor child, and the suit has been filed with oblique motive. undisputedly, the parties litigating are married to each other and the question to be gone into in the suit would be whether justifiable reasons exist for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the suit, an application styled as one Under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act') was filed by the wife claiming interim maintenance for herself, and the minor daughter and litigation expenses in order to enable her to effectively participate in the adjudicatory process. It was her claim that the husband was earning more than Rs. 5,000/ -per month, was a prosperous business man and a reasonable claim of Rs. 700/ -, which is absolutely necessary for maintenance, should be granted, in addition to a consolidated sum of Rs -10,000/ - as litigation expenses. In support of the latter claim, it has been urged that she is forced to stay with her father at Calcutta, and her frequent visit to Nayagarh where the proceeding is pending, costs money and because of the protracted litigation the claimed sum is absolutely reasonable. The claim was resisted by the husband -petitioner on the ground that the sum was exhorbitant and the interim maintenance as indicated by the wife was a figment of imagination, and he was a mere hawker and the business to which allusion has been made, belongs to his father and that also is not a very prosperous or profit earning concern. It was also indicated that the wife is gainfully employed and is earning subsrantilly to mintain herself and the child. The claim of litigation expenses his been characterised as extremely exhorbitant and fantastic. In support of the claim, the wife examined herself and another witness while the husband examined himself and another witness, to substantiate his stand The learned Subordinate Judge came to hold that from the material he was satisfied that the monthly income of the husband was at least Rs. 5,000/ - per month, an1 that the wife was entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 700/ - per month from the date of institution of the suit, i. e., . 17 -11 -1986 till final adjudication and was also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs 10,000/ -. This order as indicated above is the subject -matter of challenge in this revision application.

(3.) THE other question that survives for consideration Is the quantum of litigation expenses to be granted. The only ground urged by the wife in support of the claim is that the expenses involved to effectively participate in the proceeding at Nayagarh are high, since she is staying at Calcutta. According to her, each visit costs money and she has to frequently come because the husband is adapting dialatory methods to prolong the proceeding so that she is harassed and is not able to contest in the proceeding. Considering this, i feel that this apprehension could be arrayed if the proceeding is directed to be finalised at an early date. As held by this Court in II (1986) DMC 362 (Orisss): R. C. Mishra v. K. B. Mishra; while granting litigation expenses a reasanable assessment of the expenses likely to be incurred has to be made. Unfortunately, the requisite exercise has not been undertaken by the learned Subordinite Judge. On a fair estimate, I determine the amount to be Rs. 3,000/ -. The only other question that needs adjudication is the date from which the wife is entitled to the interim maintenance and litigation eyewitness, mode and schedule of payment thereof. The learned Subordinite judge has allowed it from the date of institution of the suit. This has been characterised as illegal by the learned counsel for the husband -petitioner.