BALWANT SINGH Vs. DINAKSHI RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under challenge in this petition is Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in an application registered as 58-G/2015 filed in the main case i.e. HMP No.12-G/15/14, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the respondent while awarding maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 4,000/- per month in addition to Rs. 3000/- already awarded to her by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, in the proceedings she initiated under the Domestic Violence Act. She has also been granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

(2.) Interestingly enough, the respondent-wife has been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance, in the proceedings she initiated against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, vide order Annexure P-1. Subsequent to the order Annexure P-1, the petitioner-husband has instituted a divorce petition against her, which is pending disposal in the Court below. It is during the course of proceedings in that petition, she has filed the application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendentelite and litigation expenses on the ground that a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, she already getting towards her maintenance consequent upon the order Annexure P-1, is not sufficient for her own maintenance and also that of her school going son Master Vidhan. She, as such, has claimed maintenance pendentelite @Rs. 8,000/- per month and also the litigation expenses against her husband, the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner, in reply to the application, has denied the claim as laid by the respondent being wrong and came forward with the version that he is running a private dental clinic and earning Rs. 10,000- Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is out of this income, he is paying her maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. It is further claimed that the respondent is a B. Ed. Teacher and working in private School as well as doing tuition work and thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.