Parul and Another vs Rajesh Kumar

J.P. Singh, J.—During the pendency of Rajesh Kumar respondents petition u/s 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980,

hereinafter referred as the Act, his wife Parul had filed an application u/s 30 of the Act seeking an order on the respondent to pay her Rs. 10,000/-

as litigation expenses and Rs. 5000/per month as maintenance pendente-lite for herself, and master Dhruv, the minor son of the parties.

Petitioners application was allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu directing the respondent to pay an amount

of Rs. 2000/per month as maintenance pendentelite minus the amount already allowed as maintenance u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

to the petitioners from the date of filing of the application, and an amount of Rs. 3000/- on account of counsel fee and litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by the lesser quantum of maintenance pendente-lite and the litigation expenses fixed by learned Additional District Judge

(Matrimonial Cases) Jammu, petitioners have filed this revision petition calling in question Additional District Judged order on the ground that

finding recorded by the Court that the respondent must be earning Rs. 3000/Rs.3500 per month, being a Television Mechanic was unsustainable,

besides being unjustified when the respondent had been held belonging to a well to do family and had a shop of his own, by the Court.

Petitioners counsel, Mr. Kundal submits that in view of respondents admission in a petition filed by him u/s 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act

seeking custody of minor Dhruv Kumar that he runs an electronic goods shop at 28-Sarwal Colony, Jammu and being financially sound as

compared to the respondent(Petitioner herein) who was not financially well of can take care of the minor child, the learned Additional District

Judge had erred in fixing lesser quantum of maintenance and litigation expenses. The facts and circumstances of the case, according to the learned

Counsel warrant enhancement in the amount of maintenance and expenses of the proceedings.

Per contra, Mr. L.K.Sharma submitted that the respondent was reeling under a financial crunch and was unable to pay even the amount which

had been sanctioned by the Matrimonial Court in favour of the petitioners and it was because of this reason that he had even withdrawn his petition

u/s 13 of the Act as he was unable to bear the burden of maintenance awarded by the Court Learned Counsel produced his client in the Court to

demonstrate that he was suffering from various ailments and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case any increase in the amount of

maintenance and expenses of proceedings would further aggravate the respondents sufferings.

Petitioner-Parul too had appeared in the Court to tell her part of the story in accusing the respondent of intentionally avoiding his responsibility to

take care of the petitioner and the minor son of the parties.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and would like to dispose of this petition uninfluenced by what the parties

had to say regarding the merits of their matrimonial dispute.

Jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC may be invoked by this Court if any subordinate Court appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by

law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or its order had

caused failure of justice.

The question raised by the petitioners in this petition that the quantum of maintenance and litigation expenses awarded by the Matrimonial Court

was inadequate, is essentially a question in the realm of appreciation of evidence which it may not be permissible for this Court to delve into in

exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

The amount which has been awarded to the petitioners as maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses by the Matrimonial Court, cannot

in any way be said to have caused such failure of justice which may provide cause to the petitioners to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the

Court because the petitioners had not led any evidence before the Matrimonial Court on the basis whereof it may be said with certainty that they

had successfully proved as to what was the exact income of the respondent.

Accepting the reasons given by the Matrimonial Court in awarding Rs. 2000/- as maintenance pendente-lite and Rs. 3000/- as litigation

expenses, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition.

There is thus no merit in this revision petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.