GOURI DAS Vs. PRADYUMNA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the wife against an order passed by the Subprnate Judge rejecing her application Med Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short the Act') for pendente the maintennce and litigation expense in a proceding initiated , by the opposite graty husband for under.Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) AFTER entering appearance in the main proceeding, the wife filed an application Under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs. 6,000/ -; Rs. 1,000/ -towards litigation expenses and Rs. 5,000/ - towards pendente lite maintenance. She submitted that she was a deserted and helpless lady having no independent income for her support and for defending her in the proceeding. Though she had taken shelter under the roof of her father, the meagre resources of her father, who was a retired Government servant, were insufficient to maintain and support her. She alleged that her husband was working an Assistant Engineer and was getting salary of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. Besides, he had income from agricultural lands, 7 acres in extent. The application was resisted by the husband. He averred that the father and the brother of the wife had considerable income. The wife had also considerable income from sewing. It was further alleged that the wife's family had a building at Cuttack, a portion whereof had been let out. He stated that after deductions, he received a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - only and the income from the agricultural lands was meagre.

(3.) SHRI M. Patra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in exercise of jurisdiction with an erroneous approach to the matter. Sri S. K Dey, the learned counsel for the opposite party, has endeavoured to support the judgment by contending that the family of the petitioner had considerable income and there was no material to show that the wife did not have adequate resource. When there was no material to show that the wife had no income, which was sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, there was no infirmity in the impugned order.