Krishan Lal vs Smt. Kamlesh Rani

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the District Judge, Hissar. dated 4.8.1986, granting litigation expensses in the amount of Rs. 1,250/- and maintenance pendeate in the amount of Rs. 100/- per mensem from the date of filing of the application, to the Respondent.

Briefly, the facts are that Smt. Kamlesh Rani Respondent filed a petition u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for fixing of permanent alimony. She also filed an application u/s 24 of the Act for payment of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 500/- per mensem as maintenance pendente lite on the ground that she did not own any movable or immovable property and had no source of income to incur the necessary expense of litigation and to meet the day today expense. The Petitioner contested the application u/s 24 and inter alia pleaded that she was not entitled to file such an application in proceedings u/s 25 of the Act. The learned District Judge held that the Respondent was entitled to file the application u/s 24 in proceedings u/s 25 of the Act and that she was entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,250/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- per mensem as maintenance pendente lite. The Petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that an application u/s 24 is not maintainable in a petition u/s 25 of the Act He submits that such an application can be filed in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation divorce and or nullity of marriage and not in other proceedings under the Act In support of his contention he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Smt. Kamlesh (1984) 86 P. L. R. 485.

I have duly considered the argument but do not find any substance therein. Section 24 reads as follows:

Where in any proceeding under this Act, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the Petitioner''s own income and the income of the Respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.

From a reading of the section, it is clear that the Court can grant maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in any proceedings under the Act. The proceedings in an application u/s 25 are proceedings under the Act. The object of enacting Section 24 is that an indigent spouse should not suffer during the pendency of the proceedings because of his/her poverty. In case it is held that a spouse cannot make an application under the said section in proceedings u/s 25 of the Act, he/ she may not be able to prosecute the proceedings under the latter section. The consequence may be that he/she may have to starve thought the life. That could not be the intention of the Legislature. Therefore, I am of the view that a spouse can file application u/s 24 in proceedings u/s 25 of the Act.

In the above said view 1 am fortified by a decision of Delhi High Court in Yogeshwar Prasad v. Smt. Jyoti Rani (1981) 83 P.L.R.D. 207. The relevant observations of the learned Judge are as follows:

After careful consideration, I feel I must uphold the view of the learned Additional District Judge that any proceedings under this Act appearing in Section 24 will cover the proceedings under Sect on 25 thereof. Section 25 contemplates that an order for permanent alimony can be made at the time of the passing of any decree under the Act or any time thereafter. Now, if a spouse has to make an application after any decree under the Act has been passed and has no sufficient means of his own, such spouse has to be provided for prosecuting the application for permanent alimony when the other spouse oppose any grant thereof Any other construction will be narrow and will lead to frustration of the provisions This is so obvious that no precedent need be cited. Yet there is an authority for this view ; see Mohinder Singh v. Om Piari, 1975 Rajdhani L R (Notes) 4.

The facts in Sohan Lal''s case to which reference has been made by the learned Counsel are different. There, application u/s 24 had been filed in a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband before the pronouncement of the order withdrew the petition u/s 9 and consequently that was dismissed as withdrawn The Court in view of the dismissal of the petition, dismissed the application u/s 24 as having become infructuous. The wife filed an application for review of the order passed on the application u/s 24 stating that in view of the dismissal of the petition u/s 9, the application u/s 24 did not become infructuous. The learned Judge reviewed the order of dismissal and restored the application u/s 24 of the Act. The husband came up in revision against the said order to this Court. It is true that in that case it was observed that the Court during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act, viz for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, divorce or nullity of marriage, can grant to a spouse having no sufficient income to maintain himself/herself and to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding, maintenance pendente lite and litigation. Those observations were, however, made in the context of the aforesaid facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. No order as to costs.