URMILA DEVI Vs. HARI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 54 of 1987, as both these revision petitions have arisen out of the same order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, on the applications filed by both the parties under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Hari Parkash Bansal, respondent, filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under S.13 of the Act, against his wife Urmila Devi, the petitioner, on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the said petition, both the parties filed applications under S.24 of the Act, for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of litigation on the allegations that they had no independent and sufficient means to maintain each other. While the husband alleged that his wife was earning more than Rs. 500/- per month by doing tailoring work, the wife countered to say that her husband had an income of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem from the kiryana shop apart from the interest income of Rs. 1,000/-. It may be stated that the marriage between the parties had taken place on December 8, 1984, and the petition for divorce was filed in February, 1986. The wife moved the application under S.24 of the Act on April 24, 1986 whereas the husband filed the application as a counter blast on June 4, 1986. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that neither the husband nor the wife was proved to have any independent and sufficient income to support himself or herself or the other spouse. In view of the said finding, it was held that none of them was entitled to the grant of the maintenance pendente lite or the costs of litigation from the other. The wife filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3165 of 1986 whereas the husband filed Civil Revision Petition No. 54 of 1987, against the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner wife submitted that it had been wrongly held by the Court below that the husband had no sufficient income of his own whereas from the evidence produced by the wife, it had been proved that he was running kirana shop and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month therefrom. However, since on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found by the learned Additional District Judge that none of the parties was proved to have independent and sufficient income as to support each other, that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.