Seema Vohra vs Devinder Vohra

G.R. Majithia, J.—This order disposes of Civil Revision No. 987 of 1991 and Civil Misc. No. 22-M of 1991 filed by the wife for fixation of interim maintenance u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) during the pendency of the revision petition.

The facts : The petitioner-wife (hereinafter the wife) filed a petition u/s 13 of the Act against the respondent-husband (hereinafter the husband). During the pendency of the petition, she moved an application u/s 24 of the Act for fixation of interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The application was declined by Shri H.S. Bhalla, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on January 7, 1991. The wife has come up in revision before this Court.

The maintenance was declined only on the ground that the wife had not disclosed in the application that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 7000/- from her account with Canara Bank. Since she had concealed this fact from the Court, this disentitled her to claim the interim maintenance.

In the application u/s 24 of the Act, the wife stated that she had no source of income for her maintenance.

In reply to the application, the husband filed an affidavit and stated therein that the wife was in possession of jwellery and valuable clothes; that she was engaged in business of knitting and sewing and was earning Rs. 500/- per mensem and that this amount was sufficient for her maintenance. The husband further pleaded that he had to maintain his unmarried sisters and one yonger brother that he was daily wager and his daily wages were hardly sufficient for the maintenance of his sisters, brother and himself.

The husband never pleaded that the wife had withdrawn money from her bank account as indicated in the order of the Matrimonial Court. It appears that during the pendency of application u/s 24 of the Act, this fact was brought to the notice of the Matrimonial Court, which hustened to conclude that the wife had sufficient funds for her maintenance.

The approach of the Matrimonial Court is not just. The Counsel for the wife was at pains to highlight that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- was lying in deposit with Canara Bank in the name of the wife; that the husband asked her to withdraw the money; that she withdraw the money from her Bank account and handed over the same to the husband. The amount was withdrawn on January 1, 1990 and February 24, 1990 and petition u/s 13 of the Act was filed on April 18, 1990 application u/s 24 of the Act was filed on the following day. On the date she filed the application u/s 24, she did not have funds for her maintenance.

The Counsel for the husband could not controvert the factual statement made by the learned Counsel for the wife. If it was factually correct that the wife had withdrawn the money as indicated in the order of the Matrimonial Court and the amount was with her, the only inference deducible is that when the husband filed his affidavit denying the claim of the wife for maintenance, he never disclosed the factum of withdrawal of money in the affidavit. If it had been a fact that the amount was withdrawn by the wife as observed by the Matrimonial Court, the husband would have deposed about this fact in his affidavit. Failure to do so leads to an inference that the wife''s version is correct. She withdrew the money at the asking of her husband and paid the same to him. She had no funds for her maintenance. u/s 24 of the Act, either of the spouses having no independent income sufficient for his or her maintenance can move the Court for fixation of interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act. On the proved facts of the case, it is not possible to hold that the wife has independent income of her own for her maintenance. Even if she has been doing sewing work occasionally or knitting pull-overs during winter season, that meagre income will be hardly sufficient for her maintenance.

The wife has stated in the affidavit that the husband is engaged in the business of bardana and is earning therefrom Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. The husband had denied this fact and stated in his affidavit that he is a daily wage worker. Even an unskilled labourer earns Rs. 50/- per day and the monthly income of the husband will not be less than Rs. 1,500/-. It is not denied that he is not able-bodied person and cannot work as an unskilled labourer. Under these circumstances, it will meet the ends of justice if the husband is directed to pay Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife with effect from May, 17, 1991 and will also pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. It is orderd accordingly.

I am not inclined to issue interim directions for fixation of maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of the revision petition. The prayer made in Civil Misc. No. 12-M of 1991 is declined.

For the reasons stated above, the revision petition and CM. are disposed of as indicated above.