S.D. Anand, J.@mdashThe respondent-wife filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to obtain a decree of divorce against the petitioner-husband. At the trial, she also filed a plea u/s 24 of the Act for award of maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The averment, in the course of the application was that she has always been and is still been ready and willing to reside at the matrimonial house with the petitioner-husband who had otherwise treated her with cruelty and thrown her out of the matrimonial house, in three bare clothes, on 18.04.2008 after be labouring her. She averred that the petitioner-husband is a man of means and has agriculture income from his agricultural holding of 20 acres and also has substantial income from his dairy farm wherein he tethers 20 heads of milch cattle. Qua herself she averred that she has no means of sustenance for self and her minor child and she is also not possessed of any means to defend the litigation.
3. The petitioner-husband denied the averments made by the respondent-wife and alleged that he does not have any source of income and that it is his father who owns about 2-1/2 acres of land. Qua the respondent-wife, it was averred that she is a well versed in tailoring and has substantial income from tailoring assignment which she undertakes at her natal house. The averment, in the context was that her income is sufficient to sustain herself and her minor child.
4. Learned District Judge noticed that the respondent-wife had not placed any jamabandi on record to prove the extent of agricultural holding of petitioner-husband and had also not placed on record any proof to indicate that the petitioner-husband has any dairy income. The District Judge also noticed that the petitioner-husband had not placed on record any evidence to prove that the respondent-wife has income, from tailoring. By observing that petitioner-husband is an able bodied individual and is bound to maintain his resource-less wife and minor child, the learned District Judge awarded litigation expenses of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from the date of the application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that award of maintenance pendente-lite is on the higher side inasmuchas the petitioner-husband does not have any source of income.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to contest the legal proposition that an able bodied husband is duty bound to maintain his resource-less wife and child. In the present age of high price, the amount of Rs. 15,00/- cannot be said to be excessive particularly when the respondent-wife has also to fend for a minor child. The petition is dismissed in limine.
