KRISHNA DEVI Vs. MOHINDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Krishna Devi filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her husband Mohinder Lal, who had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her. It was averred in the application that the respondent-husband was a Medical Practitioner and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/- . The applicant-wife was an illiterate lady and had no source of income. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance pendente lits and Rs. 550/- as litigation expenses. Both parties filed affidavits in support of their rival contentions.

(2.) Respondent-husband has contested this application. He stated that he was not a Medical practitioner nor was he earing Rs. 2,000/- a month. The applicant-wife knew the art of sewing and stitching and was earning Rs. 20/- per day During the course of proceedings, it was revealed that the applicant had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 11.000/- from an account in her name, in a Bank, on March 26, 1981. The applicant tried to explain the position of this huge sum of money by saying that she was not the owner of this money. It belonged to her father. She was only a benamidar. It had come in evidence that this money had been deposited a number of years back. The explanation given by the applicant that the money belonged to her father, did not appeal to the learned trial Judge and rightly so. Not only the plea is not plausible, it has net been supported by any evidence Even an affidavit of the father has not been rut in by the applicant. Mr. Aggarwal contended that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , what has to be seen is the income and not the means of spouse claiming maintence. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 talks of income and not the means or property of the aggrieved spouse. However, a huge sum of Rs. 11,000/- is the earning income by way of interest which may he sufficient for the daily expenses In illiterate lady like the petitioner-applicant. She is residing in a of her parents in a small town like Mansa Mandi.

(3.) There is no infirmity much less a jurisdictional error in the impugned . In the circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same.