ANIL KUMAR Vs. SHWETA ALIAS KINNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.99 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000.00 per month as maintenance to the opposite party of this revision as also Rs: 5,000.00 as lump sum towards the litigation cost in Matrimonial Case No. 205/96.

(2.) IT was contended before me by the revisionist appearing in person that the learned Court wrongly held that the revisionist was having an income of Rs. 1.00 lac per month from business being run by his family. As a matter of fact, the entire business -concerns were being owned by his father and brother and the revisionist himself was not running independent business of his own. Of course, the revisionist was having a share business earlier, but the share business had been running recently in slump, and therefore, the revisionist was not having a handsome income to pay Rs. 2,000.00 to the opposite party of this revision per month as maintenance. The opposite party has an income of Rs. 3,000.00 per month by teaching in school and she was also doing tuition work and, so she was not entitled to have any maintenance allowance from the revisionist. Moreover, the case is lingering for long and the lower Court committed certain errors of record regarding the statements of the revisionist in his plaint and his rejoinder to the opposite party 'sapplication for grant of maintenance.

(3.) I find that under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a respondent is entitled to seek maintenance allowance from the plaintiff of matrimonial suit, if he/she has no income to maintain