YASH PAL HANDA Vs. SAROJ HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I will dispose of an application filed by the wife Smt. Saroj Handa, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for grant of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite.

(2.) THE parties were married on 29.8.1973 at Bassi Pathana District Patiala, according to Hindu Rites. Two daughters were born from this wedlock - first on 24.11.1974 and the second on 16.1.1976. The wife was employed as a teachress in the Govt. Girls High School at Bassi Pathana. However, she retired from the said service and is now a retired woman, living alone. The marriage of first daughter was solemnized on 31.5.1997 and she spent an amount of Rs. Three lacs and the marriage of the second daughter was solemnized on 12.4.2003 and she claimed that she had taken loan for that purpose. According to her, the husband did not contribute at all in the second marriage while he is employed as Deputy Manager in the Food Corporation of India posted at Chandigarh and is getting a salary of more than Rs. 20,000/- per month, maintaining a car, living a lavish life, owns one double storey house with area of 300 square yards in Tej Bagh Colony at Patiala, he also owns one house situated at Dugri Road, Ludhiana in an area of 200 square yards which he has rented out and that his monthly income from all sources is about Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is alleged that unfortunately the marriage of one of the daughters has been broken and she is living with her mother. On these premises she claims maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

(3.) BOTH the objections raised on behalf of the husband are without any basis. There is no bar upon an applicant-spouse to claim maintenance pendente lite at any stage of the proceedings merely because the wife has not filed any application for maintenance earlier cannot be treated as a bar for raising such a claim now. In fact it goes to the credit of the wife and shows her bona fide rather than abuse to the process of law. The fact that she is an old lady having two children with her still she did not claim any maintenance from the husband who enjoyed the entire salary, income of the property and other perks himself. It hardly lies in the mouth of the husband even to raise such an objection. Now the wife has retired and she is living with a meagre pension which she is getting and is supporting her unfortunate daughter. Furthermore this argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband is also liable to be rejected that since the wife is getting pension she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. This issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a number of judgments of this Court. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sawinderjit Singh v. Kuldeep Kaur, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 702 (P&H) : 2000(2) PLR 736.