HARDEEP SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, granting a sum of Rs. 4000/-as expenses of legal proceedings which have been initiated by the petitioner husband in the shape of divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act' ). During the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act praying that the husband be directed to pay her Rs. 5000/- as expenses of litigation, It has been found as a fact by the Additional District Judge that the wife was serving as a teacher and that she was prima facie not entitled to claim maintenance pendente lite from her husband. However, while granting the expenses of the proceedings it has been found that the litigation has been forced upon her by her husband and, therefore, she cannot be coerced to strain her meagre resources to spend money upon expenses which could be avoided.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the view taken by the Additional District Judge is contrary to the spirit of Section 24 of the Act which lays down that where in any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act it appears to the court that the spouse to the litigation has no independent income sufficient for his/her support and for meeting the necessary expenses of the proceedings. Reasonable amount can be ordered to be paid. It has been argued that once the wife has been found to be having sufficient income for maintaining herself, the litigation expenses cannot been allowed to her on the ground that the litigation has been foisted upon her been.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the bare provisions of Section 24 of the Act, this court is of the considered view that if the income of the spouse against whom litigation has been commenced is sufficient to incur the expenses of legal proceedings, such a spouse cannot claim litigation expenses on the ground that the litigation has been foisted upon such spouse. This amounts to pre-judging the matter. Until and unless the litigation has been finally decided and it is found as a fact on the basis of evidence led before the court that such a spouse has been dragged into litigation mala fide, no such conclusion can be drawn simply because one of the spouses has come to the court and filed divorce petition. Assuming that the case of the spouse who has come to the court and initiated divorce proceedings is a meritorious one, surely such a person at the initial stage cannot be blamed for initiating the proceedings by observing that the litigation has been foisted on the other side. In view thereof, the reasoning advanced by the matrimonial Judge is untenable.