MONIKA RANA Vs. YOGESHWAR SINGH SAPEHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by the Additional District Jude, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No. 31 of 2009.

(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Respondent/husband had instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing No. 8-D/III/2007 seeking divorce from the Petitioner on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He had also preferred a CMA No. 31 of 2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He has prayed for monthly maintenance amount as well as litigation expenses. According to the husband, he has no source of income and he was having no property in his name. According to him, the wife has sufficient income being a trained J.B.T. Teacher employed in government service. The Petitioner/wife had filed reply to the application. According to her, she had earlier filed a petition against the Petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. According to her, the Respondent/husband was having sufficient income to support himself as his father has retired as Principal from Government Senior Secondary School. She also averred that the husband had inherited the landed property from his father. According to her, the husband himself was not interested to engage himself gainfully. She has also stated that in case the husband lives with her, she was ready and willing to maintain him. The Respondent/husband filed rejoinder to the same. He has reiterated the submissions contained in the application. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala disposed of the application by ordering the Petitioner/wife to pay monthly maintenance of 500/- to the husband. She was also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the Respondent/husband of 2000/- in lump-sum. The Petitioner/wife has challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Sharma, leaned counsel for the Petitioner/wife has strenuously argued that the order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala is not legally sustainable. According to him, the Respondent/husband is B. Sc.B. Ed. and has himself incapacitated from earning. He has also argued that Respondent's father has retired as Principal from Government Senior Secondary School and he owns sufficient landed property. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent/husband has supported the order dated 3rd July, 2009.