NEERJA Vs. NARENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these petitions arise out of one Order between the same parties therefore they were heard together and are being decided together.

(2.) This revision petition arises out of an order made under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act hereinafter), by the District Judge, Sirohi. According to the revision-petitioner wife she was married to the non-petitioner on Feb. 7, 1987. She left for her parent's place at Bangalore on Mar. 5, 1988. A child was born to her on July 9, 1988. In the year 1989, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Act. After service of notice of that case application under Sec. 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses was made, which was allowed on Jan. 9, 1991. According to the petitioner-wife, these expenses were not paid and when the arrears swell up to Rs. 4000.00, the husband withdrew the petition under Sec. 9 of the Act and thus avoided payment of maintenance. The wife thereupon, filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure in a Court at Bangalore on Nov. 4, 1991. On Nov. 28, 1992 an Order was made directing Rs. 500.00 p.m. to be paid as maintenance further and Rs. 300.00 p.m. for the child. According to the petitioner this order is still in force and substantial amount is in arrears. In this background on May 17, 1993, the divorce petition was filed by the husband from which the present Case arises. On Aug. 30. 1993. an application under Sec. 24 of the Act was filed by the petitioner-wife and on Aug 31, 1995 the impugned order was passed. The learned District Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 800.00 p.m. as maintenance for the wife from which a sum of Rs. 500.00awarded under Sec. 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure would be adjustable. The learned District Judge also directed Rs. 900.00 to be paid as expenses and also directed that whenever the wife was required to attend the Court at Sirohi and had to travel from Bangalore, she would be paid Rs. 700.00 on each such occasion. The, amount of maintenance was to be paid from, July 1, 1995 onwards. The petitioner-wife aggrieved by the said order has filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, submitted that the distance between Sirohi and Bangalore is 2000 KM and the petitioner had to travel that distance with her child and an escort. The petitioner also submits that.there is no basis on which the petitioner has been deprived of maintenance from the date of the application at least and she has been, without any basis, deprived of the maintenance for about two years. It was also contended that the amount of interim maintenance was also inadequate and improper looking to the need of the petitioner and the means of the non-petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the non-petitioner was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and some of his Income Tax Returns are on record. On behalf of the non-petitioner, the learned counsel opposed the prayer and contended that the petitioner had sufficient means to support herself and she was running a business in Bangalore. He also tried to show that the income of the non-petitioner was not all that which the petitioner was showing.

(3.) In the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, what is to be seen is whether the learned District Judge has committed any, material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance and the amount of expenses.