PRASANA KUMAR PATRA Vs. SURESWARI PATRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a husband's appeal1 against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, sambalpur, on the wife's application for maintenance under Section 24 of the hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955) by which the wife was granted Rs. 30 as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses.

(2.) THE relationship between the husband and the wife does not appear to be very cordial in that on February 1, 1967 the husband filed a suit against the wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said suit the wife filed this petition under Section 24 for interim maintenance and for expenses of the litigation. According to the wife, the husband has sufficient income to the extent of Rupees 2,033 per year. The learned subordinate Judge on appreciation of the evidence as discussed by him in his judgment, which I need not repeat herein, came to the conclusion that taking a modest view of the earnings of the husband it will not 'be less than Rs. 60 per month from the Pan shop and from his joint family lands. The reasoning on which he granted Rs. 30 as interim maintenance is that the husband has no dependent to maintain and further that in these hard days the barest minimum, expenditure for the maintenance of an adult will not be less than rs. 30 per month and accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge thought it reasonable to direct the husband to pay Rs. 30 to the wife as interim maintenance and Rs. 75 as litigation expenses.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the wife is entitled to certain amount of maintenance. But the question is: what should be the reasonable amount? As for maintenance pendente lite, courts generally allow it at one-fifth the income of the husband after necessary deductions. Under the Indian Divorce Act the maximum alimony pendente lite has been fixed at one-fifth the net income. Under the Hindu Marriage act no such limit has been prescribed. In the absence of special circumstances, maintenance should be allowed at one-fifth the net income of the husband. As regards litigation expenses, it should be reasonable, Mukan Kunwar v. Ajeetchand, air 1958 Raj 322.