ARJAN SINGH Vs. PARMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arjan Singh has filed this appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9th of July, 1976 by which the appeal of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) It is not necessary to state the facts as the only contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite; as she was the wife of the appellant.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no force in this contention of the learned counsel. It may be observed at the outset that it was admitted by the appellant that the respondent had been married to him. The plea taken by him in the written statement was that subsequently she deserted him and contracted karewa marriage with one Ram Bhaj. The onus of proving this fact was on the appellant. Merely this fact that a plea has been set up by the appellant that the respondent had contracted karewa marriage later on, would be no ground to refuse maintenance pendente lite, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act. In our view, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Single Judge.