- (1.) ALOK Kumar Singh, J. Smt. Veena Panda alias Seema Panda has preferred two first appeals - (1) first Appeal No. 88 of 2005 under Section 19 Family Court Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the order dated 16-9-2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 38-C/2004 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act connected with Suit No. 196 of 2004, Smt. Veena Panda v. Devendra Kishore Panda, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights; and (2) First Appeal No. 87 of 2005 against the same common order dated 16-9- 2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 189-C/2004 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act connected with Regular Suit No. 407 of 2004, Devendra Kishore Panda v. Smt. Veena Panda, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for judicial separation. Both the appeals between the same parties dealing with pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses are being taken up together for convenience.
(2.) THE facts, wrapped in brevity, are that on 11-2-2004 the appellant, Smt. Veena Panda (wife) filed a case (Suit No. 196 of 2004) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, Sri Devendra Kishore Panda (respondent) and also moved an application on 11-2- 2004 for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance and Rs. 11,000 for litigation expenses. On the other hand the respondent - husband, Sri Devendra Kishore Panda, filed a case (Suit No. 407 of 2004) on 2-4-2004 against his wife (appellant) under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. In this case also the wife (appellant) filed similar application on 16-7-2004 for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses of similar amount. Both these applications for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses were decided by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow by passing the single impugned order dated 16-9- 2005 rejecting the prayer for pendente lite maintenance while allowing Rs. 2500 each as litigation expenses in respect of both the cases. Feeling aggrieved by this order the aforesaid first appeals have been preferred by Smt. Veena Panda against her husband, Devendra Kishore Panda. After hearing both the parties the learned Principal Judge, Family Court found that Smt. Veena Panda was admittedly living with her husband (an IPS Officer now voluntarily retired w. e. f. 28-11-2005) in official residence No. 5/2 Senior Police Officers Colony, Vibhuti Khan, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The following details of salary as on January, 2005 were furnished by Sri D. K. Panda himself in the lower Court during the course of arguments, which are also acceptable to Smt. Veena Panda as per paragraph 4 of her affidavit dated 15-2-2005 filed in lower Court; - (1) Basic pay : 22400 (2) DA : 13511 (3) CCA : 150 (4) Other allowances : 375 500 150 Total : 37544/- The learned Judge Family Court worked out permissible deductions as under: - (1) GPF 2500 (2) G. I. S. 120 (3) H. Rent 600 (4) Use of car 500 (5) Income Tax : 7500 (In proportion of income tax payable on the total income) Thus total carry home salary as on January, 2005 was worked out to be Rs. 37544 - 11220 = 26324 per month.
(3.) BUT he found that the wife was not entitled for any pendente lite maintenance because admittedly she has been giving in the aforesaid house with her husband and her all the basic needs are being fulfilled. She was not dependent on anybody for her basic needs. Therefore, the prayer for pendente lite maintenance was rejected. However, keep in view the monthly income of the husband the learned Judge awarded litigation expenses of Rs. 2500/- each in both the cases pending between the parties. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. After the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties were concluded on 23-1-2006 the respondent, Sri Devendra Kishore Panda, made a request for hearing him in person. He was permitted to argue in person but his arguments remained incomplete and for that purpose 7th February, 2006 was fixed. On 7th February, 2006 the respondent did not appear and the case was adjourned to 14-2- 2006. On 14-2-2006 the case was got adjourned and 21-2-2006 was fixed. On 21-2-2006 respondent again did not appear in person and, therefore, a last opportunity was given to him fixing 22-2-2006 making it clear that if the respondent desires to argue in person he may do so on 22-2-2006 and the case will not be adjourned on any ground. The respondent did not avail the last opportunity extended to him to hear in person although the arguments of his Counsel had already been concluded, and on 22-2-2006 the respondent again did not appear. In these circumstances judgment was reserved.;