KAVITA Vs. SURENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal a challenge is made to the order dated 23rd January, 2014 whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act of 1955) was allowed in part and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application and also to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings and Rs. 150/- on each hearing as travelling expenses.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19/01/2001 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born who are with appellant. The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant before the Family Court, Kota on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which was later on transferred by this Court to Family Court No. 1, Jaipur on the request of appellant. During the pendency of divorce petition, the appellant filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 for claiming maintenance pendente lite and expenses from the respondent pleading that the respondent is running a Rice Mill in the name and style as Rajasthan Industries at Kota and is earning of Rs. 70,000-80,000/- per month. The appellant's daughters are school going and she is not in a position to meet out the expenses of education and other expenses. It is also pleaded that the appellant has no independent income sufficient for her support. Respondent opposed the application pleading that the appellant is an MBA and is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, the respondent has no source of income and is fully dependent on his parents.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During pendency of appeal, the appellant produced some documents regarding educational expenses of her daughters along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC which was allowed. The appellant also filed an application seeking enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent which was followed by counter affidavit of the appellant along with copy of details of Gross Turn-over of Rajasthan Industries, Kota. Respondent filed copies of his income tax returns for the assessment year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 showing his income as Nil. There is no material on record which goes to show that appellant has any source of income.