MANJIT KAUR Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of the wife petitioner against the order of the trial Court passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby her application has been dismissed. The learned District Judge has dismissed the application of the wife - petitioner on the ground that "the maintenance of pendente lite and expenses of litigation can be allowed to the wife only if it is proved that the husband has independent sources of income". In support of this finding he relied upon the observations of Goyal, J. in Smt. Lila Devi v. Tarlok Chand,1978 PunLR 744 and held that since the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent has an independent source of income, the issue is decided against her. Feeling aggrieved against his order, the wife has come in revision to this Curt. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a Division bench judgment of this Court in Gurmail Singh v. Bhuchari, C.R. No. 379 of 1979 decided on September 10, 1979, in which the said judgment of Goyal. J. has been considered and been observed that "in the case of Smt. Lila Devi's , Goyal, J. has decided the matter on the facts of that case" and that "no proposition of law as canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner as such has been laid down by the learned Judge." been further observed therein that "it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that if a person is working with his father, he has no income" and that "in that context, it may be a relevant consideration that a person is an able bodied one and is capable of working even as an ordinary labourer or otherwise" and it cannot be argued on behalf of the husband petitioner in this case that simply because he is working with his father, he has no independent income and it is itself sufficient to deprive his wife to claim maintenance under section 24." In that case the argument was made on behalf of the husband that he is required to pay maintenance pendente lite only, if he has independent income of his own. This argument was repelled by the Division Bench with the observations :

(2.) In view of this judgment of this Court, the revision petition is liable to be accepted.

(3.) Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back for deciding the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above. No costs.