S. Parminder Singh vs Balbir Kaur
1992 Latest Caselaw 172 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24th July, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi.

(2) The respondent wife had filed an application dated 4th January, 1981 against the petitioner husband under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for fixation of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. The respondent had alleged in this application that the petitioner was earning Rs.3000.00 per month from the motor parts business which he was running jointly with his brother in the name and style of M/s Delite Auto Parts, Punjasharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The respondent had claimed RS.1OOO.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs.3000.00 as litigation expenses.

(3) The petitioner husband denied these allegations. He filed photostat copy of the partnership deed of the firm M/s. Delite Auto Parts to show that he was not a partner in this firm. The petitioner, however, submitted that he was getting Rs.400.00 per month by working in his brother's business. He further submitted that for the past two years he had discontinued this job and was not earning any amount. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent have not produced any documentary evidence in support of the income of the petitioner. The learned trial judge, however, held that the petitioner was an able bodied man and that his brother was doing good business and as such the petitioner's income should be assessed at Rs.600.00 per month. Accordingly by order dated 4th July, 1981 he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.600.00 as litigation expenses and Rs.300.00 per month as pendente lite maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 29th January, 1981 to the respondent wife. This order has been challenged by the petitioner husband in this revision petition.

(4) Mr. Monga, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the learned trial judge assessing petitioner's income at Rs.600.00 per month was based on no evidence.

(5) It has been admitted by the petitioner himself that he was getting Rs.400.00 per month by working in his brother's business. He, however, failed to produce any evidence other than his own statement that at the time of filing of the application for maintenance he was not earning at all. Keeping in view all these facts and the evidence on record I find that the impugned order requires modification to this extent that the petitioner's income should be assessed at Rs.400.00 per month.

(6) Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and I direct the petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.600.00 as litigation expenses and Rs.200.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application i.e. 29th January, 1981 within two months from today. No order as to costs. The trial court record be sent back immediately.