GURMAIL KAUR Vs. THANA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the applicant has prayed that the respondent-husband in the present appeal be restrained from contracting another marriage during the pendency of the present appeal. This application, in fact, stood disposed of vide order dated 8.10.1998 passed by the Division Bench where the respondent has been restrained from contracting second marriage.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 2.7.1989 at village Kothe Neemwala, Maur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur according to the Sikh rites. The parties lived together as husband and wife for a short time. Later the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty towards the husband and his family members and the ground that the wife had deserted husband for a period of more than two years and six months prior to the filing of the petition. The petition itself was filed on 16.3.1995. The petition for divorce was contested by the wife. However, vide judgment dated 3.8.1998, the learned District Judge, Bathinda decreed the petition for divorce and dissolved the marriage between the parties leaving them to bear their own costs. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Bathinda, is impugned in the first appeal before this Court. The present application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed in this appeal.

(3.) It is averred by the appellant-wife that she has to come all the way from Sangrur to Chandigarh to pursue the appeal filed by her and in the present days of rising prices, she finds it very difficult to make the both ends meet by meagre maintenance of Rs. 400/- per months, which has been awarded to her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further averred that at the time of filing of the application, the respondent- was working as a Naik in the Army and was drawing salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further stated that the husband has no other liability except towards the wife. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-husband now has become a Hawaldar in the Army and is now drawing much higher salary than what he was drawing earlier. On these facts, the appellant-wife is claiming the above maintenance and litigation expenses.