I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner-husband impugns the order passed against him under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) whereby the trial Court has granted a sum of Rs. 150.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 50.00 per month as maintenance pendente lite in favour of the respondent and against him.
(2.) The challenge is two-pronged : (i) that the lower court has found nowhere that the petitioner was actually earning anything has rather depended on his capacity to earn being an able-bodied man; and (ii) that no reasons have been recorded by the lower court either believing or disbelieving the stand of the two litigating parties or the Court has not found the sufficiency or means of either of the parties to this litigation.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that the challenge is well-merited. It has already been held by me in Dev Raj Vs. Harjit Kaur, [1981 HLR 416 : 1982 Marriage Law journal 24] that in these proceedings under Sec. 24 of the Act the capacity to earn is no consideration for the grant of maintenance and litigating expenses against a husband. It is only his factual earnings which can be taken into consideration by the Court while granting relief to the opposite party. Similarly, the other stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is supported by two earlier judgments of this Court in Smt. Satish Bindra Vs. Surjit Singh Bindra, [1977 PLR 384 : 1978 Marriage Law journal 26] and Shakuntla Vs. Amar Nath, 1977 PLR 405 wherein it has been held that while granting maintenance under Sec. 24 of the Act, the trial court is supposed to discuss the pros and cons of the rival versions of the parties relating to the quantum of income of the husband and the court has to record reasons for granting a particular sum.;