ISH KUMAR Vs. SMT. SURINDER ALIAS GEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings instituted by the Petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), the Respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the affidavits filed by both the parties granted Rs. 300/ - per month for maintenance of the Respondent and her minor son and Rs 300/ - for litigation expenses It is this order which has been challenged by way of this revision:

(2.) THE impugned order is sought to be assailed on the ground that the finding of the trial Court regarding the income of the Petitioner, which was assessed at Rs. 1,000/ - per month, is based on mere surmises and conjectures instead of any evidence on the record. The contention is not factually correct. The trial Court relied on a statement, which was made by the Petitioner in the Court but not signed by him. wherein he admitted that he was carrying on the trade of sale and purchase of buffaloes. Apart from that, it was also admitted that the houses which was inherited from the father of the Petitioner was yielding rental income of Rs. 900/ - per month So far as the income from the house was concerned, it was contended that the same belongs to the mother exclusively in accordance with the consent decree passed in her favour whereunder she agreed to pay Rs 500/ - per month as maintenance for the son and his wife. It was further urged that the Respondent has also filed a suit to enforce the liability of her mother in -law under the said consent decree. It is highly doubtful if the Respondent would be able to claim any maintenance under the decree referred to above, which seems to be a clever device between the mother, and the son to enable the Petitioner to put up a defence against the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had inherited one -half share in the house in dispute which could not be transferred by a consent decree Half of the rental income, therefore, would be deemed to be available to him for meeting the claim of maintenance of the Respondent. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the trial Court was based on mere surmises and conjectures. No ground, therefore, has been made out for interference in revision with the impugned order and this petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.