Decided on March 22,1983

ANJU GUPTA Appellant
Naresh Kuviar Respondents


N.N. Goswamy, J. - (1.)This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-3-1982 passed by the learned Addl. District judge whereby the application of the petitioner-wife under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for maintenance pendente lite was disposed of and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 700.00.
(2.)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial judge has taken into consideration only the salary of the respondent and has not noticed that the respondent is getting rent for the house as also the overtime allowance. During the pendency of the proceedings, it was alleged by the petitioner that the respondent had let out the house allotted to him by his employer and was thereby getting a rent of Rs. 350.00per month. In a later affidavit, she had pleaded that the rent was Rs. 550.00per month. In reply to this allegation, the respondent had pleaded that he had not let out the house and was residing in the house himself. On application of the petitioner, the learned trial judge had appointed a local commissioner. The local commissioner had reported that the house in question had been allotted to the respondent but one Mr. Sharma with his family was staying in the house. The learned trial judge also directed the respondent to produce the statement of over time allowance drawn by him from his employer. No such certificate was produced by the respondent. However, while passing the final order which has been challenged in this revision petition, the learned trial Judge has neither noticed the report of the local commissioner nor the fact that the respondent had failed to produce the statement of over time allowance drawn by him. According to the allegation of the petitioner, the respondent was getting Rs. 250.00 per month as over time allowance.
(3.)After giving my careful consideration to the arguments advanced, I am not inclined to take note of the over time allowance because this cannot be said to be a regular feature. It may be that the respondent had drawn over time during the Asiad as stated by him which may not continue indefinitely. However, the fact that the house has been let out, cannot be over looked. The rent of the house, according to the petitioner, was Rs. 350.00per month though later it was said that the rent was Rs. 550.00 per month. I take the rent to be Rs. 350.00 per month. The salary of the respondent is Rs. 997.70 per month. Giving him the benefit of compulsory provident fund to the extent of Rs. 100.00, the take home salary would be Rs. 897.70 per month. Thus the total amount which comes to the hand of the respondent, would be about Rs. 1250.00 per month. The petitioner besides maintaining herself has to maintain the minor child born out of the wedlock between the parties while, the respondent has no such liability. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 400.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite for herself and for minor child. As a result, the order dated 9-3-1982 is modified to the extent that the maintenance pendente lite is enhanced from Rs. 250.00 per month to Rs. 400.00 per month from the date of the application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The litigation expenses as awarded are maintained. The arrears would be paid by the respondent in two equal instalments. The first will be paid on or before 12th April, 1983 and the second on or before 12-5-1983. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.