PRITI PARIHAR Vs. KAILASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the wife's application under sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act')

(2.) THE respondent filed a petition for divorce before the 'District- Judge, Jodhpur in which a decree for divorce was passed on January 4, 1977. THE appellant Smt. Priti Parihar filed an appeal in this Court against the aforesaid decree. Along with the appeal she also filed an application under sec. 24 of the Act praying for grant of interim maintenance and expenses of the appeal. THE learned Single Judge by his order dated April 15, 1977 directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance pendente lite and also awarded her a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of expenses of the appeal. This order has been challenged by the wife in this appeal.

(3.) MR. Calla, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that it is not a hard and fast rule that 1/5th of the net income of the husband should be awarded by way of interim maintenance to the wife. It is of course undisputed that the award of maintenance pendente lite is a matter of discretion of the court, but we must add that this discretion is to be exercised on sound legal principles It was held by this Court in Mukan Kunwar vs. Ajeet Ghand(4) that in the absence of special circumstances interim maintenance should be allowed @ 1/5th of the net income of the husband after making deductions of the amounts payable on account of income tax and provident fund. We see no reason in the present Case to depart from the ordinary rule laid down in the aforesaid decision as no special circumstances have been brought to our notice, nor have been mentioned * by the learned Single Judge in his order. The fact that the appellant has been receiving interim maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month throughout the litigation before the trial court, when the income of the husband was much less is hardly a ground of circumstance for not applying the ordinary rule referred to above to the facts of this case when it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the gross income of the husband has increased by about Rs. 900/ since the interim maintenance amount was fixed by the learned District Judge in the proceedings before him. It is needless to stress that the amount of interim maintenance payable to a wife should undergo a corresponding increase with the increase in the husband's emoluments, in the absence of special circumstances.