SATISH CHANDRA PUROHIT Vs. MANJU PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, dispute relates to the grant of alimony pendente lite to non -petitioner Smt. Manju against whom the petitioner Satish Chandra has filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(2.) THE District Judge, Jodhpur, after taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that it was proper to assess the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 3000/ - per month and holding it to be so, granted to the non -petitioner alimony pendente lite at rate of Rs. 600/ - per month. Apart from that, the District Judge also granted an amount of Rs. 700/ - to the non -petitioner for expenses of legal proceedings on divorce which she was required to defend.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non -petitioner raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has nowhere alleged in his petition that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would cause failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to him and, therefore, this court should not vary or reverse the impugned order. If we read the petition filed by Satish Chandra as a whole, it would appear that he had alleged that his earning activity has been limited to his service in Water Works Department for about three years on a pay of Rs. 327/ - per month which was hardly sufficient for making his both ends meet. There is a further fact appearing in the case and the fact is that even the District Judge has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner merely on an estimate. There were no accounts before the District Judge to come to the conclusion that the monthly income of petitioner was Rs. 3000/ - per month. There also appears to be variance between the pleading of the non -petitioner and the evidence on the point whether the petitioner himself used to drive three wheeler or whether it was only given on hire by him to certain persons. Due to this important fact, it is necessary in this revision to examine where, in such circumstances, the quantum of alimony pendente lite fixed by the District Judge is reasonable or unjust.