NEERAJ SHARMA Vs. KULBHUSHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife, who is the petitioner, has preferred this petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court in application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was pleaded before the learned trial court that the petitioner herein, had been forced to leave matrimonial home for the reason as pleaded by her which inter alia included physical and mental cruelty. It was pleaded that the respondent, who is the husband and petitioner before the trial court, is not supporting their daughter. It was pleaded that his earning was Rs. 70,000/ -per month including private tuition work etc. The non -applicant husband was also possessed large tracts of agriculture land in Janerghat/Chail from where he is deriving income of more than Rs. 25,000/ - per month. The petitioner claimant was serving as Librarian in the Indian Institute of Advance Studies where she take home salary was Rs. 21,000/ - and she has no other means to support her daughter. She claimed a sum of Rs. 55,000/ - for litigation expenses. On contest, the learned trial Court holds that the non -applicant is admittedly a central government employee earning Rs. 21,000/ - per month and there was no material on the record that she is spending large portion of salary on maintaining her daughter. What I find from the judgment is that the learned Judge has given a complete go by to the principles applicable for grant of maintenance. What the wife sought in this application was litigation expenses which should and ought to have been granted. Even accepting that the salary of the petitioner herein was Rs. 21,000/ - per month, the learned trial Court should and ought to have realized that she would spend money for food, clothing and shelter on herself and also education and school fee etc. on the child. However, the learned court came to the conclusion that this salary was substantial to meet the expenses. The learned Court also holds that the receipt of the actual expenditure incurred have not been placed and proved on the record of the case.

(2.) THE application has been disposed of without caring to ascertain the factual position. The principles for grant of interim maintenance are well settled. In Smt. Chandana Guha Roy Vs. Goutam Guha Roy, : AIR 2004 Cal. 36, the Court holds:

(3.) IN Laxmi Sharma Vs. Dr. Akash Deep, Latest HLJ, 2011 (HP) 1031, the Court holds: