Jatinder Paul Sharma vs Renu Sharma

V.K. Jhanji, J.—The husband filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act''), for decree of divorce against his wife, on September 19, 1990.

The respondent-wife moved an application for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, wherein she stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself, whereas the respondent-husband was employed as Sectional Officer in Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi, and was getting Rs. 3.446/- per month, as salary.

The petitioner-husband in reply to the application, stated that the respondent is in service as Teacher in Mela Devi Kalra Arya Public School, Saili Road, Pathankot, and thus, she has sufficient means of income to maintain herself. The wife produced a Certificate to the effect that her resignation has been accepted w.e.f. November 1, 1990. The trial Court, after finding that the husband is getting Rs. 3,446/- as salary, granted maintenance to the wife, at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month w.e.f. November 15, 1990 and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses.

Notice was sent to the respondent-wife for today, but it has been reported by the Registry that she has refused to accept the same.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court was not justified in granting maintenance when on the Certificate, it is shown that the wife has resigned on her own accord. He has further contended that even otherwise, the respondent is not entitled to Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance, because the petitioner has not only to support his aged mother but also three younger brothers, who are college/school going.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the trial Court is Justified in granting maintenance to the respondent-wife because she is no longer in service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance pendente life is reduced to Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. November 15, 1990.

Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the trial Court dated January 17, 1991 is modified to that extent, as stated above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.