BALBIR KUMAR Vs. ANITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, granting maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application despite the fact that the application of the respondent-wife filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, seeking permission of the court to sue as an indigent person is pending.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her minor son, seeking permission to sue the petitioner-husband for recovery of Rs. 2,70,000/- as an amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7500/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 2500/- for the minor son) for the period from September 21, 1998 to August 31, 2001 for three years and her future maintenance from September 1, 2001 at the same rate. During the pendency of the application to sue as an indigent person, the respondent-wife filed an application for the grant of interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance has been opposed by the petitioner-husband although the facts regarding marrige and birth of the child have been admitted. He has claimed that the respondent-wife is a quarrelsome and short tempered lady. He has further claimed that she has herself withdrawn from the society of the petitioner- husband although he is keen to live with her. It is further alleged that she was prosecuted under Sections 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, along with her relatives and she was on bail. The petitioner-husband further pleaded that he has been working as a Senior Assistant in Haryana Roadways and drawing Rupees 4565/- per month as salary. The Civil Judge allowed the application and operative part of the order passed by him reads as under :-

(3.) MR . Atul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sukhminder Singh v. Baljeet Kaur and another, 2000(1) PLR 68 : 1999(4) RCR(Civil) 652 (P&H) wherein the aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband have been considered in detail. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Indira Sonti v. Suryanarayana Murti Sonti and another judgment of Gujarat High Court in Amankumar Lalitbhai Parekh v. Pritiben Amankumar Parekh, 1992(2) HLR 658.