Kuldip Singh vs Smt. Rajni

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—The husband has directed this revision petition against the order dated 4th June, 1988, of the learned District Judge, Hissar, granting maintenance Pendente lite in the amount of Rs. 1000/-per month and Rs. 2500/- as litigation expenses to the wife, u/s 24 of the Hindu Marraige Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), in proceedings u/s 9 of the Act instituted by the husband.

In brief, the facts are that Kuldip Singh was married with Smt. Rajni on 7 May, 1985 at Jodpur. They cohabited as husband and wife till 20/21st February, 1986, when she withdrew from his society, and did not resume cohabitation with him despite repeated requests. Kuldip Singh then filed an application u/s 9 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Hissar on reciept of notice of these proceedings, Mst. Rajni filed an application u/s 24 of the Act claiming Rs/ 4000/-p.m. as maintenance Pendente lite and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses contending that she was turned out of the house by her husband due to her inability to meet the demands of more dowry. It was further maintained that he husband owns 30 Acres of land at village Baje khan which yields an annual income of Rs. 30,000/-It was also maintained that house situated in the Housing Board colony at Sirsa also gives rental income of Rs. 1000/- per month to her husband. It was also averred that the husband is getting Rs. 3000/-p. m. as rent of the Godowns at Sirsa rented out to Food Corporation of India. She also averred that she has no independent source of income to maintian herself. This application was resisted by the husband contending that his wife is earning Rs 1500/-per month from doing tuition work and had joined 11. A. classes at Gurgaon. He, however, admitted that being owner of 25 Acres of land in village Baje Khan and Dhingsara, he is getting Rs. 10,000/- as annual income from the produce of this land. He also alleged that he has to maintain himself, his widowed mother and two sisters of marriageable age. It was further stressed that he has to repay the crop loan of Rs. 25,000/-taken from the State Bank of India at Sirsa and that the rental income adjusted against the building loan obtained from the Bank The house located in the Housing Board Colony at Hissar was contended to have been transferred by him to his real brother as he was unable to pay its price in installments.

The learned District Judge after going through the evidence led by the parties, concluded that the monthly income of the husband was not less than Rs. 5000/-per month and thus keeping in view the status of the parties, granted the above referred maintenace pendente lite and litigation expenses. The conduct of the husband in not attending the Court for reconciliation purposes also weighed with the trial Court.

There is considerable force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in proceedings u/s 24 of the Act, the conduct of the parties is not relevant, as the Legislature while enacting Section 24 had deliberately not made such conduct of a party relevant under the provisions, but has done so specifically under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act relating to permanent alimony and maintenance. Section 24 of the Act runs as under:

Maintenance pendenti lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it sppears 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 proceedings, 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 preceding 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.

A bare perusal of the same leaves no doubt that only relevant considerations in proceedings u/s 24 of the Act are the financial capacity of the party to bear the expense of these proceedings, so that the indigent spouse should not be left without means of putting her or his case fairly before the Court. The word ''may'' used in connection with the awarding of maintenance penedente lite and litigation expenses u/s 24 of the Act pertains to the financial capacity or indigency of the spouses and not to their conduct or defence in the parent proceedings u/s 9 or 13 of the Act as the case may be. The findings of the Gujarat High Court in Lallubhai Keshavram Joshi Vs. Nirmalaben Lalluram Joshi, , can be safely referred in this regard. This conclusion is further fortified from the factum that such application had to be moved by the concerned spouse at the initial stage of the proceedings of the parent suit u/s 9 or 13 of the Act at which stage it will be difficult for the Court to come to the conclusion as to which party was at fault, regarding the rupture of marital relations. In the present case also, the husband had imputed the desertion on the part of his wife without any rhyme or reason, while the wife has alleged that she was forced to leave the house of her husband on her failure to meet the demand of the husband and inlaws to unreasonable dowry. The learned Counsel for the Respondent by relying upon the observations of the Rajastan High Court in Balbir Singh v. Smt. Swaran Kanta A. I. R 1989 Raj. 266. that the conduct of the parties is relevant in these proceedings but I fail to subscribe to the view in Balbir Singh''s case (supra) due to the above referred reasoning. Thus, it appears that the learned District Judge has wrongly taken into consideration the conduct of the husband in not attending the Court during which efforts for reconciliation were being made. Suffice it to say, at this stage that such like conduct would certainly have reflection on the final hearing of the application for conjugal rights.

The question then arises whether the trial Court had used its discretion regarding the quantum of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses unreasonably. In this regard, it is noteworthy that admittedly Kuldip Singh, Petitioner, owns 30 Acres of land in two villages. He is the exclusive owner of the land measuring 25 Acres in village Baje Khan while he has 1/8th share in land of Dhingsara. There is no dispute that he has 4.4% share in the godowns at Sirsa, rented with the Food Corporation of India, yielding a monthly rent of Rs. 70267.82. He also owns a house in the Housing Board Colony at Sirsa, though alleges that his brother is paying the instalments towards its purchase price on the basis of agreement no sell as he failed to do so, which was rightly not found genuine by the trial Court. No doubt, the rental income from the godowns is being adjusted by the Bank from which the Joan was taken for its construction, but all the same this loan would be paid by December, 1988. The evidence of the Revenue Patwari of these two villages appearing as A. W. 1 and A. W. 2 do reveal that in the year 198(sic) due to exceptional dry weather, the crops of Kuldip Singh were depicted as damaged in the relevant revenue record, but all the same that being not a permanent feature, it is not of much relevant to judge the monthly income or the financial status of Kuldip Singh. The very factum that aforesaid Kuldip Singh had taken a crop loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Bank, out of which Rs. 18,000/- has yet to be returned, further shows that his annual income from the agricultural produce was not less than Rs. 25,000/- Under these circumstances there is no scope for holding that the trial Court had wrongly assessed the income of Kuldip Singh at Rs. 5000/-per month. However, it appears that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the findings of this Court in Kulwant Kaur alias Kanti v. Bur Singh 1984 H. L. R. 43., as 15 Acres of land belonging to Bur Singh in that case was found to have perennial source of irrigation by canal, whereas in the present case there is some Barani land also

Barring the bald statement of the husband, there is no evidence on the file to conclude that the wife is earning Rs 1500/-per month by imparting tutition to students at Gurgaon. On the other hand, the factum that she is doing her M. A. in Political Science as a regular student clearly rules out such possibility as she would hardly find any time to do so Thus, her version in this regard sounds truthful.

For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court, which is hereby confirmed. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own posts, as Mst. Rajni was paid Rs. 2000/- by her husband as litigation expenses of these proceedings.