TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed on behalf of Shrimati Mohinder Kaur, Respondent in this Court, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for expenses of the proceedings and maintenance pendente lite. It is alleged that Dr. Tarlochan Singh filed an application for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Shri Charan Singh Tiwana, Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed on 19th November, 1960 against which order the present appeal has been preferred by the said Tarlochan Singh. Shrimati Mohinder Kaur petitioning Respondent has since been served with a notice of the appeal and has to make arrangements for defending her case. Her only source of income is her salary from Shazadanand Primary School, Amritsar, which amounts to Rs. 60 per month. Having no other movable or immovable property from which she can meet the expenses and live according to her status in life, she has asked for a sum of Rs. 1,000 as expenses and reasonable monthly maintenance during the pendency of these proceedings. It has been mentioned that Dr. Tarlochan Singh was ordered to pay Rs. 200 as counsels fee and Rs. 50 as monthly maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court under Section 24 of the Act. In para 6 it is stated that Dr. Tarlochan Singh, according to his own admission in the proceedings for judicial separation, has been earning not less than Rs. 300 per month from medical practice and also owns about four houses in Amritsar. As the litigation is a protracted one, she has stated that she requires the assistance of a good lawyer and would also have to come to Chandigarh for the purposes of proper conduct of these proceedings which would obviously involve a certain amount of expense. Her petition is supported by her own duly sworn affidavit.

(2.) In opposing this petition on behalf of the husband, it has been contended that the wife has her own resources from which she can meet the expenses of the appeal and can also maintain herself. In this connection it is noteworthy that in the trial Court the learned Senior Subordinate Judge ordered Dr. Tarlochan Singh on the 23rd December, 1959 to pay maintenance to the wife pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 80 per month from 28th May, 1959 onwards and also to pay Rs. 200 as expenses of the litigation. The husband came to this Court on appeal against the said order (First Appeal from order No. 6/M of 1960), and a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the litigation expenses could not be considered to be either excessive or unreasonable; on the other hand this provision erred on the side of meagreness. In so far as the question of maintenance was concerned, after considering the means of the husband the amount was reduced to Rs 50 per month. This order was passed by D.K. Mahajan, J., on 2nd May, 1960. It has not been shown on behalf of the husband by any cogent material that the means of the husband have undergone any change or that any thing material has happened justifying reduction of the amount fixed by this Court in the previous proceedings. Mere assertion on behalf of the husband during the course of arguments by his counsel that his income has gone down, does not, in my opinion, constitute a sufficiently cogent ground for reducing the amount. It would thus appear that the rate of Rs. 50 per month cannot be said to be, by any means, excessive. Now so far as the expenses for the present appeal (First Appeal from Order No. 20-M of 1961) are concerned, after hearing the counsel for the parties, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 200 can reasonably be allowed to the wife for the appeal including the expenses for the present petition (Civil Miscellaneous No. 936 of 1961) for which also she had to engage a counsel and spend money in its prosecution.

(3.) The question with respect to maintenance arises as to from which date the sum of Rs. 50 per month should be ordered to be paid. It is common ground that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month has been paid up to 28th of June, 1960. After that date, however, the husband did not care to pay any amount though the proceedings in the Court below terminated as late as 19th November, 1960. This would mean that the husband had withheld the payment to the wife in accordance with the orders of this Court for nearly five months during the proceedings in the trial Court. On behalf of the Respondent my attention has been drawn to the fact that the wife had unsuccessfully applied for realisation of the arrears on 31st October, 1960 in the Court below. This is true but as is clear from the record the learned Judge, instead of deciding that petition with due promptitude, deferred his decision on it till after the termination of the proceedings and then rejected it on the ground that the main proceedings having terminated no order for payment of arrears of maintenance could be made by him. In this connection it would be instructive to draw the attention of the Court below to the following observations by a Division Bench of this Court in Shrimati Malkan Rani V. Krishen Kumar,1960 2 ILR(P&H) 566.