Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner Ruchi Srivastava has filed present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2nd April, 2010 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Family Court, Allahabad under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. in Family case No. 673 of 2008. The Court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/ -per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/ -from the date of order. The Petitioner had claimed maintenance @ Rs. 12,500/ -per month and litigation expenses Rs. 10,000/ -. She has also prayed that maintenance be allowed from the date of application i.e. 12th February, 2009. Since the claim of the Petitioner as such has not been accepted, hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE marriage of Petitioner was solemnized with Respondent No. 2 Sri Krishna Gopal on 24th November, 2007 at Allahabad according to Hindu rituals. The Respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act vide plaint dated 30th July, 2008 seeking declaration of marriage as void. The ground taken in the said petition is that the Petitioner was a mental patient much before her marriage and concealing this fact, marriage was solemnized hence it is liable to be declared void. In the said petition, Petitioner was impleaded as opposite party through Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, his father and guardian. The Petitioner's father filed an application praying that he be relieved from guardianship of opposite party since Petitioner is quite hale and hearty and graduate in English literature and has wrongly been impleaded through her father though after marriage, the husband ought to be the guardian. The said application was filed on 12th February, 2009. The application was rejected by Family Court by order dated 2nd September, 2009 observing that medical record of Petitioner shows that she is suffering from Schizophrenia and therefore is not capable to effectively place her defence before the Court. The order dated 2nd September, 2009 was challenged in writ petition No. 53455 of 2009 but the Court did not interfere except of clarifying vide judgment dated 14th October, 2009 that observations made thereunder shall not influence the Court in deciding the petition itself on merits. Another application was filed by the Petitioner on 12th February, 2009 seeking maintenance and litigation expenses. The said application prays for grant of Rs. 10,000/ -for litigation expenses and Rs. 5,000/ -per month towards maintenance. The application was rejected on 13th January, 2010 observing that the same having not been filed through the guardian was not maintainable. Thereafter the Petitioner filed another application No. 30A through her father on 20th March, 2010. It is this application which has been disposed of by means of the impugned order. Sri S.N. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner has been deserted by Respondent No. 2 without any just cause since 25th July, 2008. She has No. property moveable or immoveable and No. source of income. Her father is retired employee having liability of wife and two unmarried daughters and therefore Petitioner is not capable of maintaining herself while Respondent No. 2 is running an NGO and also publishing a Hindi monthly magazine "Sampark Apke Sath" and his income is more than Rs. 25,000/ -per month. It is contended that in the circumstances, particularly considering financial condition of the Petitioner's father family, she ought to be allowed appropriate amount for maintenance and the Court below in awarding just a meagre sum of Rs. 2,000/ -, has committed error apparent on the face of record, which justify modification of the said order.
(3.) THE Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit in which basic facts are not in dispute. However, it is stated therein that monthly income of Respondent No. 2 is less than Rs. 75,000/ -p.a. from consulting projects. So far as the NGO is concerned it is said that he is a member of NGO engaged in social work but it is on the basis of No. profit. So far as the magazine is concerned, it is said that publication thereof has been closed since January, 2009. Respondent No. 2, however, has not given details of his educational qualification and his assets etc.;