MAHENDRA KAUR Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS under Sec of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were initiated by the non - petitioner Darshan Singh, against the petitioner Mahendra Kaur, his wife. The latter filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') on 16/4/84 praying therein that as the has no source of income, her husband should be directed to provide her interim maintenance allowance and expenses for the litigation. Mahendra Kaur supported the contention of the application by swearing in an affidavit of the same date. On 28/5/84, Darshan Singh filed reply to the application and denied the contention of his wife that she possessed 25 bighas of land in Chak No. 12 CDR, yielding an income of Rs. 60,000/ -. He stated that he was possessing only 2 bighas of land in Chak No. 12 CDR and from its income he was maintaining even himself with difficulty. He substantiated his contention regarding the measurement of his land by filing a copy of the entry in the revenue record to that effect. On 20. 07. 1984, Darshan Singh filed an affidavit contending therein that Mahendra Kaur was earning by weaving carpets and knitting sweaters and doing emboidery work. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh rejected the application by the order impugned in this revision petition. Notice was issued to the non - petitioner Darshan Singh, at the admission stage and Mr. H. S. Sandhu has put in appearance on behalf of Darshan Singh. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition was heard today for final disposal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mahendra Kaur, strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge, while considering the application under Sec. 24 of the Act, has legally erred in going into the merits of the case, that is to say whether there was justification for Mahendra Kaur to refuse to live with her husband, which the learned Judge should not have done. It has also been contended that there is no specific evidence about the income of the wife so as to discard her prayer. Mr. H. S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the non - petitioner, controverted these contentions on the ground that the learned Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that it is very difficult for a person to maintain himself even with a petty income of Rs. 400/ -. He has also submitted that his client was ready and willing to keep Mahendra Kaur with him and it was for that reason that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed.