MANASI MOHANTY Vs. GOKUL CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This Civil Revision is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Udala on 29.8.2001 in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1998, arising out of Original Suit No. 39 of 1997. That application was filed by the present petitioner praying for interim maintenance and litigation expenditure under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short, the 'Act') in as much as in Original Suit No. 39 of 1997 the prayer is for a decree of divorce. The petitioner appears as the defendant in that Original Suit.

(2.) It is not at controversy that both the spouses are serving as teachers and having monthly salary. In view of that and keeping in view the statutory provision in Section 24 of the Act. learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has declined to grant any order for interim maintenance. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for litigation expenditure is concerned, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) directed the plaintiff/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (five hundred).

(3.) In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that petitioner is not entitled to interim maintenance and accordingly such a prayer is not pressed. He, however, states that since the petitioner claimed for Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) towards litigation expenditure, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) was unreasonable in granting a paltry sum of Rs. 500/-. Learned counsel for the opp. party, on the other hand argues that when the petitioner is capable of undertaking series of litigation, both civil and criminal, and is also capable to spend for those litigation from her source of income, the amount granted vide the impugned order may be accepted as reason able and it should not be enhanced.