Pardeep Kumar Sharma vs Smt. Geeta
1998 Latest Caselaw 1000 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. None appears. As this revision petition is of the year 1989, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 23.3.89 in an application in HMA No. 225/87 disposed of the application of the wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act which grants Rs. 600/- per month as maintenance to the wife w.e.f. 26.11.1987 and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. The respondent-wife has averred that her husband had been running business and earring Rs. 3,000 /- per month. The husband did not state his income and denied that his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month and consequently the learned Additional District Judge awarded Rs. 600/- per month to the wife as maintenance. The learned Judge awarded the said maintenance on 23.3.1989 to be effective from 26.11.1987. However, the impugned order has totally lost the sight of the fact that in a petition filed by the respondent-wife in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Meerut in an application for restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance has already been awarded under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent wife @ Rs. 150/- per month and mis circumstance, though, noticed by the Trial Court, has not been given any consideration. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.

3. It is significant that the husband had filed petition in the Court of Civil Judge, Meerut under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife had left the matrimonial home and also left behind with thehusbandtwominor

daughters aged 3 and 5 years which is evident from the application and the revision petition filed by the husband. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.3.1989 is set aside.

No order as to costs.