RAJEEV KUMAR KOUL Vs. JYOTSANA KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-12-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Malrimonial Cases), Jammu in file No. 111 titled Dr. Jyotsana Koul and others versus Rajeev Kumar Koul.

(2.) Dr. Jyotsana Koul (respondent No. 1 herein), filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for divorce on the ground of desertion. Along with it, she also filed an application under Section 30 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself and also for minor children. The respondent No. 1 had pleaded that from the wedlock two children namely Surja Koul and Tushar Koul were born. They are residing with her in her parental house and are studying. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 used to spend more than Rs. 15,000/- per month for maintaining herself and also Rs. 10,000/- per month on the education and maintenance of the minor children. As such, the total expenditure which the respondent No. 1 incurring is Rs. 25,000/- per month. The income of respondent No. 1 is not sufficient to maintain herself and bear the expenses of the minor children for their studies, for maintaining them and also she is unable to bear litigation expenses, as she is a Doctor by profession and her earning is only Rs. 12,000/- per month. Whereas, the appellant is an Engineer who is employed in a Company in United States of America and he is drawing more than rupees two lacs per month, besides that, he is getting more than Rs. 50,000/- per month as rent of two houses which he owns and are situated at Delhi. The respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. The appellant contested the petition and raised number of objections by pleading that as the respondent No. 1 has already filed a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. which is still subjudice, the petition under Section 30 of the Act is not maintainable as it amounts to parallel proceedings. It was further pleaded by the appellant he is unemployed and is dependent on his family. Whereas respondent No. 1 is an employee as a practicing Doctor and her earning is more than Rs. 20,000/- per month which is sufficient to maintain herself and to maintain minor children.

(3.) In support of her claim, respondent No. 1 had examined witnesses namely M. L. Koul, Pran Nath Handoo, Bansi Lal and she was also appeared as her own witness. The appellant has not led any evidence to rebut the statement of respondent No. 1.