SAVITRI PIPLANI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition seeks to impugn the interlocutory order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, in an application filed by the wife for herself and her two minor children, claiming maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings in the main case which was tiled by Subbash Chander husband for restitution of conjugal rights and in the alternative for judicial separation. By means of the impugned order, the trial Court awarded Rs. 75/- per month to the petitioner on account of maintenance pendente lite, but did not award any amount on account of expenses of proceedings mainly on the ground that the petitioner was also possessed of a source of income as she was working as a teacher drawing Rs. 685/- per month as salary.

(2.) At the time of the hearing of this Revision Petition, Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent stated at the bar that the main case for restitution of conjugal rights/judicial separation had since been disposed of by the trial Court and hence the present petition seeking to enhance the amount of maintenance pendente lite and claiming expenses of proceedings had become in fructuous. In fact, it is pointed out that the trial Court having decided the main case against the respondent, the latter had filed an appeal against the same in this Court which is pending and if desired, the petitioner could move afresh for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings in the above mentioned appeal, The contention aforesaid is, however, controverted by Mr. N.C. Jain. learned counsel for the petitioner who argues that the present Revision Petition should not be treated as in fructuous and this Court should go into the propriety of the order passed by the trial Court irrespective of the right of his client to seek similar relief in the appeal which is pending in the High Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the above mentioned point, I propose to go into the question as to whether the Revision Petition has become in fructuous or not. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent has at the outset produced certified copy of the judgment passed by J. V. Gupta, J. on November 15, 1979 (in Civil Revision No. 114 of 1979) in similar situation when the matter was before this Court in consequence of a petition for divorce filed by the husband against his wife. In those proceedings also, the learned District Judge had granted a sum of Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner in a petition filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act). While considering the Revision Petition against the aforesaid order, J. V. Gupta, Jon November 15, 1979 (in Civil Revision No. 114 of 1979 observed that as the main petition had been finally disposed of by the time the Revision Petition came up for hearing, the latter had become in fructuous. An argument was indeed advanced before the learned Judge that the fixing of Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the petitioner and her children may not become a permanent basis for the grant of some allowance at the appellate stage, but this matter was clarified by J.V. Gupta, J. on November 15, 1979 (in Civil Revision No. 114 of 1979 by observing that the petitioner and her children will be entitled to the maintenance as and when claimed according to the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and the order of the trial Court fixing Rs. 50 per month as such allowance will not be taken into consideration in any subsequent proceedings. The Revision Petition was, therefore, dismissed with these observations.