Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Balkrishna Sharma, appellant in person, who has, in details, narrated the facts and has argued the appeal exhaustively.
(2.) THE facts, pertinent to be set out, are that the parties are married, and out of their marriage, which was solemnized at Bharatpur on 8.2.1996, they have a son, Madhan, aged, as on date, 16 years. The parties are living separately on and from 14.2.2003 because of their differences and the son is living with her mother, since then. The appellant, meanwhile, has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, and the said proceeding is pending in the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur. During the pendency of the above proceeding, the respondent -wife and her son (represented by her) did file an application under Section 24 of the Act, praying for maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 14,000/ - per month for them together with an amount of Rs. 1500/ - as litigation expenses for each date of attendance in court. In her application, the respondent -wife stated that the appellant had deserted her and her son on and from 14.2.2003 without any justification, and that, since then, she, alongwith her minor son, are residing with her parents at Bharatpur. She further stated that she had no independent income, and thus, was unable to maintain herself and her minor son. She averred that the appellant was an Announcer at Akashwani earning Rs. 50,000/ - per month. She also stated that in addition thereto, the appellant -husband did have a house at Jaipur, and that, was also the owner of agricultural lands, from which he had an additional income of Rs. 10,000/ - per month.
(3.) THE appellant -husband, in his written statement, admitted the marriage and also owned the son. He also admitted that the respondent -wife and her son were living separately from him. He stated that meanwhile, on an order passed in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'Act 2005'), he has been paying an amount of Rs. 6,000/ - per month to her and her son. According to the appellant -husband, the respondent was M.A., M.Ed./B.Ed. and was capable of earning her livelihood. He denied to be the owner of any agricultural land and pleaded that his income was, amongst others, utilized for the maintenance of his old parents. He alleged that the respondent -wife and her son had concealed material facts, and that, thus, the prayer ought to be rejected.;