GURMAIL SINGH Vs. BHUCHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu. Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. By virtue of the impugned order dated 20th January, 1979 the matrimonial Court has granted Rs. 100/- as litigation expenses to the wife-respondent and Rs. 50/- per month as, maintenance pendente lite from the date of her application. This revision petition has been admitted to D. B. because of the following question referred by D. S. Tewatia, J. for determination by a larger Bench

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that Gurmail Singh, petitioner, has moved a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court' of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Moga (with enhanced powers of District Judge). In that petition, Smt. Bhuchari, the respondent-wife of the petitioner, pleaded that she has no source of income and is unable to support herself and to pay the necessary expenses of the proceedings against her under Section 9 of the Act; that' she has been living entirely on the mercy and charity of her parents and that the applicant Gurmail Singh is a moneyed man and his monthly income is Rs. 1000/-. Thus she prayed that Rs 500/- on account of expenses of the proceedings and Rupees 200/- per month as maintenance pendente lite be granted to her. The application was supported by an affidavit. To this, the husband Gurmail Singh submitted his reply that the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance pendente lite and that he does not own any property and that he has no source of income. He further pleaded that he has been working with his father. However; all those averments were not supported by any affidavit. The leamed Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties, observed and held as under:-

(3.) When the case was being heard by the learned single Judge, D. S. Tewatia, J., the counsel for the petitioner, cited a single Bench decision of thus Court, reported as Smt. Lila Devi v. Tarlok Chand. (1978) 80 Pun LR 744 in support of his submission that the husband in this case had no independent' source of income from which interim maintenance could be ordered to be paid by the Court under Section 24 of the Act, and the husband's working with his father could not be construed as being engaged in gainful employment The learned Judge found himself unable to agree with the view taken by S. P. Goyal J., in the aforesaid case because almost majority of the cases that come from the villages are of the nature where a husband works on the land of his father. This is how the matter is before this Bench.