SUNITA GANDHI Vs. UPINDER GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court declining to grant interim maintenance to the wife in a suit for maintenance. The husband, prior to these proceedings, had initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (briefly 'the Act' ). In those proceedings, in application under Section 24 of the Act, wife was granted maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensem. This amount was not found to be sufficient by the wife. She filed Civil Revision No. 700 of 1987 in this Court. This Court enhanced the maintenance pendente lite from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 750/- per mensem. Subsequently, petition under Section 13 of the Act was dismissed on merits. Husband filed an appeal in his Court which was dismissed in limine. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, wife was paid maintenance upto March 1991. Wife thereafter filed a suit in Forma pauperis for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the 1956 Act' ). Her prayer to sue as an indigent person is being contested by the respondent. During the pendency of the application to sue as an indigent person, another application for ad-interim maintenance was filed. This application, on contest, was declined primarily on the ground that the wife is not entitled to maintenance before a decision is given on her application to sue as an indigent person. This order declining her interim maintenance is being impugned in the present petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed. Under Section 18 of the 1956 Act, the wife is entitled to maintenance, this right is given to her because she is a wife. A Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Har Kaur and Anr. ,1 1970 C. L. J. 648 held that "where the marital status is ad mitted, it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife, no matter even if she is not prepared to live with him or perform the conjugal duties. It is another matter if she has become unchaste or has remarried. In that event, there is no duty on the husband to maintain her. " Keeping in view the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh's case (supra), the petitioner is certainly entitled to the grant of interim maintenance.

(3.) MRS. Alka Sarin, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, relying upon a decision of this Court in Mohan Singh v. Mohinder Kaur,2 1977 H. L. R. 268, has contended that during the pendency of the application to sue as an indigent person, no interim maintenance can be allowed. This contention of her does find support from Mohan Singh's case (supra) in which it was held that during the pendency of application to sue as an indigent person, no relief by way of interim maintenance was possible.