BASANT RAM Vs. PUSHAPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed against the order dated 13.12.1996 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arrah in Matrimonial Case No. 41 of 1993 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/ -per month to respondent no. 1 to maintain herself and her three children from the date of passing of the order and also to pay Rs. 2,000/ - as litigation cost to her.

(2.) THE petitioner was married with opposite party no. 1 on 23.4.1979. The petitioner filed matrimonial case no. 41 of 1993 against opposite party no. 1 alleging therein that opposite party no. 1 is leading adulterous life with opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 appeared in the case and filed a petition under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act lor maintenance of Rs. 6,000/ - per month - for herself and for her three children and Rs. 20,000/ -as cost of litigation. It was stated in the petition that the three children Were born out of the wedlock from the petitioner. She has no means of earning and is unable to maintain herself and three children. The petitioner is Stenographer -cum -P.A. to the Additional Director Education, Patna and drawing more than Rs. 6,000/ - per month as salary. A rejoinder to the said petition was filed by the petitioner stating therein that she is not entitled to maintenance as she has been allowed maintenance of Rs. 1,0001 - per month under section 125 Cr. P.C. and also that she is leading adulterous life with opposite party no.2. The court allowed maintenance of Rs.1000/ -per month to opposite party no. 1 and cost of litigation Rs. 2,000/ - by the impugned order.

(3.) THE provision of section 125 Cr. P. C. are quite distinct from the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Under section 125 Cr.P.C. only orle spouse, namely, wife would be entitled for maintenance. She can be awarded maintenance if she establishes that she has no independent source of income and that she has been refused and neglected maintenance by her husband and her husband has sufficient means to maintain her; whereas under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act either wife or husband, as the case may be, can be granted maintenance pendente lite and also expense of the proceeding if she or he has no independent source of income sufficient for his or her maintenance or necessary expense of the proceeding. The nature of respective case in both the proceedings is quite different. There can be no difficulty on the part of the wife for pursuing . remedy under both the provisions simultaneously as there is' no bar under the law. Once it is shown that she is entitled for maintenance/interim alimony, the court is required to consider the economic status and condition of the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that since opposite party no. 1 has been granted maintenance for her and her children under section 125 Cr.P.C. she cannot maintain a petition under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the court cannot allow interim alimony under the aforesaid provision. In this regard reference may be made to the cases of Hansaben vs. Ramesh Kumar Railal Patari, 1992(3) Cr. L.J. 3688 and Vishwanath Pondlik Chavan vs. Nirmal and others 1992 (2) Cr. L.J. 1262.