SURITA SINGH Vs. MAHABIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHABIR Singh respondent filed a divorce petition against his wife Smt. Surita Petitioner in the year 1981. Wife petitioner was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte and after recording ex-parte evidence a decree for divorce was passed against the wife-petitioner. On 19-12-1989, wife-petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 30-5-1981. Along with the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, applicant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming Rs. 2,200 as litigation expenses and Rs. 7,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite. Parties were afforded opportunity by the trial Court to lead evidence by filing their respective affidavits. Wife-petitioner filed here own affidavit in support of her allegations wherein she stated that she was unable to maintain herself, that the income of the husband-respondent is more than Rs. 50,000 per month, that husband-respondent has 100 acres of land and that he has sold eight acres of land at Jalandhar at the rate of Rs. 7 lacs per acre in February, 1988, that husband-respondent has refused to maintain the petitioner in order to harass her. It has further been stated that wife-petitioner requires Rs. 5,000 per month for her maintenance being a woman of high status moving in high society and Rs. 2,000 per month for medical expenses as she is suffering from ulcer and other problems.

(2.) HUSBAND-RESPONDENT did not file any affidavit. Trial Court taking income of the respondent to be Rs. 1,000 granted maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 250 per month and Rs. 500 as litigation expenses. Wife-petitioner has come in revision against the said order.

(3.) THE allegations made by the wife in her application under Section 24 of the Act have gone unrebutted. Taking the facts stated in the application under Section 24 of the Act to be correct, it is evident that husband-respondent is a man of substantial means. Trial Court has erred in taking his monthly income to be Rs. 1,000 only. Statutorily minimum wages payable to a labourer in Punjab have been fixed at more than Rs. 800. Under the circumstances, Trial Court erred in fixing the income of the husband-respondent at Rs. 1,000 per month.