SAMANT BHADRA Vs. KUMARI RASHMI PRIYADARSHNI @ ANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) THIS application has been filed against an order dated 24.1.2008 whereby and whereunder, the court below has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 3,000/ - consolidated by way of cost of litigation in terms of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below has not recorded any finding on "own income" of the petitioner and that whatever has been observed in the impugned order is more or less by way of surmises and conjectures. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed person and that merely because his family members had owned shop and agricultural land will not constitute his "own income".

(3.) THIS Court would find that the application under Section 24 of the Act came to be filed by the petitioner seeking divorce from his wife, opposite party. Such application having been filed the wife after her appearance had filed an application on 4.8.2006 wherein she had stated the following facts: -