PRITAM SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 288 of 1982 and Civil Revision No. 3178 of 1982 as both of them have been filed against the same order of the trial Court.

(2.) In proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter called 'the Act') the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. It was contended the she has no independent source of income and is unable to bear the expenses of the litigation. It was allege that her husband Pritam Singh earns about Rs. 1000/- from his job as a Granthi. She also mentioned that in proceedings under Section 125 Criminal P. C. instituted on 27th Feb. 1978 maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month was allowed on 27th Oct. 1979 which was payable in compliance with the said order and consequently, she is entitled to Rs. 800/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 300/ as maintenance pendente lite. In reply the husband took to the plea that his wife earns about Rs. 200/- per month from tailoring. He further discloses that in the execution proceedings of the order f maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, all past, present and future claims of maintenance were compromised between the parties, when a lump sum of Rs. 9000/- was paid to Rajinder Kaur in complete and total satisfaction of al claims. The factum of having received Rs. 9000/- in lump sum on account of compromise D/- 18th Sept. 1981 was admitted on these allegations, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that even though a lump sum of Rs. 9000/- has been paid to the wife by way of compromise in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C./ but that does not disentitle her to claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act In this behalf, he relied upon Surhit Kaur v. Tirath Singh (1977) 79 Pun LR 621: (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 112) and ultimately came to the conclusion that at best, the wife can be expected to earn about Rs. 900/- per annum as interest on the amount of Rs. 9000/- and in this manner, her income therefrom comes to Rs. 75/- per month. But keeping in view the trend of rise in prices, the said amount is not sufficient to maintain her and she can safely ask for further grant of maintenance allowance which was allowed @ Rs. 75/- per month by the learned trial Court In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 300/- was allowed as litigation expenses, Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties have filed these two separate petitions.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the husband, after making the payment of a sum of Rs. 9000/- by way of compromise in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. the wife was not entitled to any maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, in the compromise entered into between the parties, the copy of which has been fled along with the revision petition, it was specifically stated that after that day there would be no claim of any type of maintenance etc. left against the husband Moreover, argued he learned counsel, the wife is entitled to one maintenance only which has been allowed to her under Section 125, Cr. P. C. Having once allowed the maintenance and the amount having been paid in lump sum, the wife is estopped from claiming the maintenance again under Section 24 of the Act. The judgment in Surjit Kaur's case (supra) relied upon by the trial Court according to the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.