SUDERSHAN KUMAR KHURANA Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties were married on 10th Dec., 1974, and a female child was born 13th Sept., 1975. Thereafter differences arose between them. On 28th Jan., 1978, the wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act), for restitution of conjugal rights and on 31st Jan, 1978, she filed an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite for herself and the child. Notice of both the applications was served on the husband on 21st March, 1978, for 28th April 1978. Before deciding the petition under Section 9, the court called upon the parties to lead evidence on the application under Section 24. The wife concluded her evidence on that application on 25th March, 1979. A reading of the impugned order shows that the wife had to put in great efforts in bringing on record documentary evidence on prove the income of the husband. On 14th Sept., 1979, the husband filed a written statement in the main case and on 20th Sept., 1979, he made a statement that the petition of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights may be allowed. When the husband made this concession before the court below, the wife represented that the proceedings under S. 9 of the Act could not be concluded because the petition under Section 24 was yet at the stage of evidence to be produced by the husband. The Court below, by detailed order dated 20th Sep., 1979, came to the conclusion that even if proceedings under S.9 are concluded, the petition under Section 24 of the Act could be continued and, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 9 of the Act and granted her a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In spite of the decision of the main petition under s.9, the proceedings under Section 24 of the Act continued and the husband concluded his evidence on 14th October, 1980, the Court below allowed to the wife and the child a total sum of Rs. 700/ per mensem as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. The Court below relied on a decision of Shri S. C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, between the parties, wherein for the wife and child maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/- per mensem was allowed, besides relying on other evidence brought on the record. Against the aforesaid order the husband has come to this Court in revision.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued to the wife and after hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 700/ per mensem granted to the wife and the child by the court below under S. 24, red with Section 26 of the Act, is well-based. It is admitted on behalf of the husband that in 1978, Shri S. C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi. In the dispute between the parties, awarded maintenance pendente lite to the wife and the child at the rate of Rs. 700/- per mensem and the husband filed a revision in the Delhi High Court which was ultimately withdrawn by him. The husband is a chartered Accountant and he passed in 1973. For some time he served in a private company but later on gave up service and started his private practice as a chartered Accountant. When the decision was given by Shri S. C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, even at that time the husband was doing private practice as a Chartered Accountant. Although his income-tax returns show very nominal income from the profession of Chartered Accountant but from a large number of dealings, in respect of which documentary evidence has been brought on the record, it is clearly established that the petitioner is very well to do and his income is sufficient enough out of which Rs. 700/- per mensem can easily be allowed to the wife and the child. Accordingly, the decision of the Court below in this regard is upheld. Moreover, it is not shown that since the decision of the Delhi Court, the income of the husband has gone down.

(3.) The point which was more seriously argued before me by Shri Ahluwalia on behalf of the husband was that since the main petition under S. 9 of the Act was disposed of on 20th Sep., 1979. The Court below was devoid of jurisdiction thereafter to proceed with the application for grant of maintenance pendente lite because S. 24 of the Act relates to grant of maintenance only during the pendency of litigation. The learned counsel placed reliance on two single Bench decisions in Smt. Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai, AIR 1977 Delhi 176 and Nirmla Devi v. Ram Dass, AIR 1973 Punj and Har 48. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Ss. 24 and 26 of the Act were enacted to provide maintenance to the wife and the child pendente lite but a reading of the two sections does not show that if the main petition is disposed of the jurisdiction of the court to award maintenance pendente lite by an order to be passed thereafter is taken away.