PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-wife filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, petitioner herein. In the said petition, she also filed an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Learned District Judge, Hisar after obtaining reply to the application, allowed the application by his order dated November 5, 1992 and allowed maintenance pendente lite to the wife at the rate of Rs 2000/- per month besides allowing litigation expenses to the tune of Rs 2500/-. The maintenance pendente lite was payable from the date of the application under section 24 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, husband has filed the present revision.

(2.) Efforts were made to resolve the controversy between the parties but the same did not bring any fruit.

(3.) I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that learned District Judge erroneously concluded that the husband had an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month and fixed maintenance pendente lite having regard to that income. According to the learned counsel, the husband is an unemployed youth having no source of income. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, sought to justify the order passed by the learned District Judge.