SUDHARSHAN KUMARI Vs. CHAGGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jammu dated 15 -2 -1977, passed in a application u/s 24 of the J and K Hindu Marriages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) IN proceedings between the parties initiated by the husband, respondent, against his wife, the appellant, herein, for divorce u/s 13 of the Act, an application u/s 24 of the Act was submitted by the appellant for grant of a lump -sum of Rs. 1500/ -in her favour for meeting the expenses in the main proceedings u/s 13 of the Act. By another application a request was made for the award of Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance allowance pendente lite. Both parties led evidence and examined several witnesses in the trial court. The controversy centred round the fact as to what was the income of the husband, the respondent herein. According to the certificate of pay produced by the respondent, his basic pay appears to be Rs. 215/ - per month. His witnesses have alleged that he has no agricultural land but that his father did own a few gumawoes of land. On the other hand another certificate has been produced by the appellant herein which showed that the total emoluments vide Army instructions derived by the Respondent amounted to Rs. 330/ - per month which included Dearness allowance as well as Additional dearness allowance and his increment pay. In addition to this, it was certified that the respondent was entitled to free rations except when on leave or staying with his family and for this purpose an amount of Rs.

(3.) 90 was authorised in his favour per day. Besides, witnesses produced by the appellant deposed that the income of the respondent per month was about Rupees 600/ -. It, however, appears during the arguments the respondent made an offer to pay Rupees 50/ - per month as maintance allowance to the appellant as well as agreed to pay Rs. 175/ -, in instalments, as expenses for the proceedings instituted by him u/s 13 of the Act. His statement was recorded and the offer was put to the learned counsel for the appellant who also agreed to this arrangement and by virtue of two separate statements he exhibited his readiness to accept Rs. 50/ - as maintenance allowance per month from the date of the order and also agreed to accept Rs. 175/ - as expenses for the proceedings. In view of this agreement the learned District Judge passed the impugned order in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties and directed that the respondent shall pay Rs. 50/ - per month as maintenance allowance to the appellant from the date of the order upto the end of the proceedings u/s 13 of the Act. He further ordered that an amount of Rs. 175/ -will be paid by the respondent in three instalments of Rs. 75/ -, Rs. 50/ - and Rs. 50/ - in Feb:, March, and April, 1977 respectively. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Judge had no authority to order the payment of the maintenance allowance from the date of the order. According to him in view of the word "proceedings" used in Section 24 of the Act, the only order that could have been passed by the trial court in this behalf was that the maintenance allowance be paid from the date of the service of the notice on the appellant in the proceedings u/s 13 of the Act instituted by the respondent. He has further contended that the respondent was drawing good salary and had no liabilities whatsoever and therefore, could well afford to pay an amount of Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance allowance to the appellant. He has assailed the order of the trial court on these two grounds only.