Smt. Lila Devi vs Tarlok Chand

S.P. Goyal, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Rupnagar dated July 19, 1978 dismissing the application of the wife u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite.

The learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection and urged that since the main petition in the trial Court stands disposed of by order dated September 20, 1978, this petition has become infructuous. I am unable to appreciate this contention. The right of the wife to seek litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite for the period during which the proceedings remained pending in the trial Court is not washed away by the dismissal of the main petition. Consequently the preliminary objection is over ruled.

The trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties arrived at the finding that the respondent husband has no source of income and, therefore, was not liable to pay litigation expenses or maintenance pendente lite to the wife. This is a pure finding of fact and no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner which could warrant interference with this order. All that the learned counsel urged was that even if it is found that the husband is not earning anything, he is duty bound to maintain his wife under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. There cannot be any dispute with this proposition of law but for that purpose she has to institute proceedings under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1986. The maintenance can be allowed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act only if husband is shown to be in a position to do so.

It was next urged the witnesses of the petitioner deposed that the respondent is working at the factory of his father. That may be so but that will be no proof of the fact that he is drawing any pay for that work Simply because of the fact that he is working there and assisting his father, it cannot be concluded that he has any independent source of income out of which the maintenance can be allowed to the wife.

I, therefore, find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous No. 2589-C-II of 1978 also stands dismissed. No costs.