KULDIP SINGH Vs. SMT. RAJNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband has directed this revision petition against the order dated 4th June, 1988, of the learned District Judge, Hissar, granting maintenance Pendente lite in the amount of Rs. 1000/ -per month and Rs. 2500/ - as litigation expenses to the wife, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act instituted by the husband.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Kuldip Singh was married with Smt. Rajni on 7 May, 1985 at Jodpur. They cohabited as husband and wife till 20/21st February, 1986, when she withdrew from his society, and did not resume cohabitation with him despite repeated requests. Kuldip Singh then filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Hissar on receipt of notice of these proceedings, Mst. Rajni filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs/ 4000/ -p.m. as maintenance Pendente lite and Rs. 15,000/ - as litigation expenses contending that she was turned out of the house by her husband due to her inability to meet the demands of more dowry. It was further maintained that he husband owns 30 Acres of land at village Baje khan which yields an annual income of Rs. 30,000/ -It was also maintained that house situated in the Housing Board colony at Sirsa also gives rental income of Rs. 1000/ - per month to her husband. It was also averred that the husband is getting Rs. 3000/ -p. m. as rent of the Godowns at Sirsa rented out to Food Corporation of India. She also averred that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. This application was resisted by the husband contending that his wife is earning Rs 1500/ -per month from doing tuition work and had joined 11. A. classes at Gurgaon. He, however, admitted that being owner of 25 Acres of land in village Baje Khan and Dhingsara, he is getting Rs. 10,000/ - as annual income from the produce of this land. He also alleged that he has to maintain himself, his widowed mother and two sisters of marriageable age. It was further stressed that he has to repay the crop loan of Rs. 25,000/ -taken from the State Bank of India at Sirsa and that the rental income adjusted against the building loan obtained from the Bank The house located in the Housing Board Colony at Hissar was contended to have been transferred by him to his real brother as he was unable to pay its price in installments.

(3.) THERE is considerable force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act, the conduct of the parties is not relevant, as the Legislature while enacting Section 24 had deliberately not made such conduct of a party relevant under the provisions, but has done so specifically under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act relating to permanent alimony and maintenance. Section 24 of the Act runs as under: