(1.) ORDER :- An application was filed by respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband before District Judge, Jammu, seeking maintenance pendente lite U/S 30 of the J and K Hindu Marriage Act. The wife claimed Rs. 8,000/- as maintenance pendente lite for herself and maintenance of the child of the parties. The District Judge decided the application vide his order dated 27-5-1994 and allowed maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,500/- P.M. in favour of the respondent/wife. He also awarded Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts as narrated by the District Judge in this case are that the respondent/Wife is a teacher and her monthly income is Rs. 2,230/-. As per the petitioner/husband, his carry home salary is Rs. 4,500/-. Although the parties have disputed the claims in respect of each other's income, but the District Judge has come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence led before him that the respondent/wife was earning nearly Rupees 2500/- P.M., and the petitioner/husband is not earning less than Rs. 5,000/- per month. So, on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the District Judge, this Court will assume that the income of both the spouses is Rs. 7,500/- per month.
(3.) Counsel for both the sides have relied upon many judgements of this Court and also of the Apex Court. The judgements relied upon by the parties lead to only one conclusion that what should be the proportion of the husband's income to be given to the wife as maintenance pendente lite, is a matter essentially to be determined in the light of the circumstances of a particular case. Under the flexible and wide ranging powers vested in the Court Under Section 30 of the Hindu Marriages Act, it is possible for the Courts to fix an amount which a party is entitled to receive as maintenance pendente lite. The provision is such that it gives wide discretion to the Court to fix an amount as maintenance pendente lite after considering all the relevant factors of a particular case. It does not lay down any such formula by which one can arrive at a conclusion by mathematical deductions. It is not necessary in this revision proceedings to go in detail into the matter and, it is not also permissible for this Court to weigh the evidence led by the parties before the District Judge. In a judgement reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad 29, the Court held that neither a minimum nor a maximum percentage of the respondent's income can be fixed for the maintenance allowance. The quantum must depend on the circumstances of the case. However, consensus among the various High Courts in the country is that one third of the aggregate income of husband and wife less by wife's income can be good guide for fixing maintenance. This view was also held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in a judgement which is reported in 1975 Hindu Law Reporter 252 Punjab. In the present case, the aggregate income of the parties according to the finding of the District Judge is Rs. 7,500/-. If one third of this income is allowed in favour of the respondent/wife, that would make it Rs. 2,500/- P.M. which is the amount which she is earning herself. Therefore, it could not be held that she was entitled to any maintenance pendente lite from the income of her husband. But keeping in view that a school going child is also living with her and in addition to personal maintenance, she has to live in a rented house, I think it will be just and appropriate if an amount of Rs. 700/- P.M. is added to this on account of maintenance for the child and Rs. 500/- added to the overall expenditure of the respondent/wife. Therefore, I hold that the respondent/wife is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,200/- P.M. including the maintenance to the child of the parties from the date it has been allowed by the District Judge. The grant of maintenance to the child was also challenged in this revision by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent, however, relied on a judgement of this Court reported in 1987 KLJ 38.