* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 478/2010
% Date of Decision: 15.02.2012
SHWETA SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr C.B. Singh, Advocate
versus
RAVI SINHA ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
1. By way of this petition, petitioner-wife has challenged the order dated 31st October, 2009 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi has allowed her application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and respondent- husband has been directed to pay the petitioner-wife Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite along with Rs.5000/- towards the litigation expenses. The respondent-husband is further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards the travelling expenses to the petitioner-wife as and when she comes to Delhi from Muzaffarpur to attend the proceedings.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of present petition are as under:-
Respondent-husband has filed a petition u/s 13(i)(a) of the Hindu CM(M) 478/2010 Page 1 of 4 Marriage Act against the petitioner-wife seeking divorce on the ground of adultery which is pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Delhi. In the said petition, petitioner-wife has filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance for herself. It is alleged that respondent-husband is a well qualified person earning around Rs.40,000/- per month. Besides, his father gets pension of Rs.10000/- per month and respondent-husband also owns agricultural land. Respondent-husband has no other liability except to maintain petitioner-wife. By way of her application she had prayed for the grant of Rs. 15,000/- towards maintenance pendente lite. She has also prayed for litigation expenses and travelling expenses. Respondent-husband has opposed the said application by filing reply wherein it is alleged that petitioner-wife is giving tuitions and earning about Rs.7000-8000 per month. Respondent/husband has denied the allegations of his earnings. About his income, respondent-husband has contended that he is also earning about Rs.7000-8000 from tuitions. He has alleged that he has no claim over the pension of his father. Respondent- husband has levelled allegations of adultery against the petitioner-wife.
3. Learned ADJ has disposed of the application vide impugned order mentioned above granting maintenance pendente lite/litigation CM(M) 478/2010 Page 2 of 4 expenses/travelling expenses which are also mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that very meagre amount of maintenance is awarded to petitioner. It is contended that considering the income of respondent, petitioner is entitled for higher amount of maintenance pendente lite.
5. Before the learned ADJ, Delhi no material was placed by both the parties to substantiate allegations about alleged income of each other. The relevant finding of the trial court on the quantum of maintenance is as under:-
"Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the applicant/wife claims that non-applicant/husband has an income of Rs.40,000/- per month besides, sum of Rs.10,000/- which he gets on account of pension of his father. On the other hand, non applicant/husband claims that he is earning only Rs.7000/- to rs.8000/- per month and that he does not have anything to do with the pension of his father and the applicant/wife is herself earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month from tuitions. None of the parties have filed any documents in support of their respective contentions. It is moral and legal responsibility of the non-applicant/husband to maintain the applicant/wife at least specialty when no maintenance has been sought for the minor child at this stage."
6. The allegations made by petitioner-wife about income of respondent are vague. Even necessary details of alleged employment are also not given. She has alleged that husband is well qualified. Even the necessary details of CM(M) 478/2010 Page 3 of 4 educational qualification of husband are also not given. Even the necessary details of alleged properties/agricultural land of respondent/husband is also not given. Nothing has been placed on record before Ld. ADJ or before this court that husband owns agricultural land or palatial house as is alleged. The allegation even lacks material particular also.
7. In these circumstances, no illegality is seen in the order of the learned Addl. District Judge which calls for interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is clarified that by impugned order maintenance pendente lite is awarded to petitioner/wife. The same does not cover the interim maintenance for the child. Petitioner-wife will be at liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law before the trial court for the grant of interim maintenance for the child.
Petition stands disposed of.
VEENA BIRBAL, J FEBRUARY 15, 2012 ssb CM(M) 478/2010 Page 4 of 4