Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Revision has been referred to us under the orders of the learned single Judge, on the question as to whether an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', granting interim Maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife in an application filed by the husband under Section 9 of that Act for restitution of conjugal rights, survives independently giving the wife a right to claim the same though the application under Section 9 is dismissed either for non-prosecution or otherwise.

2. Though the case is listed for 'ex parte orders', yet Mr. R. Ramanarayana has appeared and on his request to be heard, we have heard both the sides.

3. The facts leading to the case are that the respondent had originally filed O.P. 36/ 83 for restitution of conjugal rights and in that the petitioner filed I. A. 629/83 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The O.P. was dismissed as Section 9 of the Act had been declared unconstitutional by this Court. Later on, on the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this court, the respondent again filed O.P. 127/84 claiming the very same relief. The petitioner filed LA. 564/84 in that case in February, 1985 for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The application was rejected holding the property alleged as belonging to the respon-dent is not his individual property, but self-acquired property of his father. As against that C.R.P. No. 2513 of 1989 was filed in this Court which was disposed of on 3-12-1990 declaring the property to be the joint family property with the respondent having a share in it, and remanding the case to the trial court for fixing the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner. The learned subordinate Judge fixed the interim maintenance at Rs. 150/- and the litigation expenses as Rs. 500/-, even though, in the application, the petitioner claimed for Rs. 200/- as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, she has preferred the present revision. During the pendency of the revision the O.P. 127/84 has been dimissed for default on 28-6-1991. Because of such fact, the submission was urged on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of the revision before the learned single Judge that the original petition itself having been dismissed, the question of payment of interim main-tenancedoes notarise. In this revision we are confined only to the question of interim maintenance as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

15. In the result, the decisions in Emani Venkateswarlu v. Emani Padmavathi, (1986) 2 APLJ 134 and Donti Reddy Chinna Venkata Reddy v. Donti Reddy Vijaya Laxmi, (1990) 1 Andh WR 374 are overruled. The case be listed before the appropriate single Bench to be dealt with on merits. Since the matter is old and relates to maintenance, we direct that the case be listed on the 20th December, 1994 before the learned single Judge.

16. Wife is the petitioner in this case. The revision has been filed questioning the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Machi-lipatnam fixing interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act") at Rs. I50/- per month and directing payment of sum of Rs. 500/-towards the litigation expenses pending the main O.P., filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent is the husband. He filed O.P. No. 36 of 1983 for restitution of conjugal rights in the first instance. In the said application, the petitioner-wife filed I. A. No. 629 of 1983 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. Having regard to the judgment of this Court declaring Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as unconstitutional, the said O.P. was dismissed. The said judgment of this Court declaring Section 9 as unconstitutional was overruled by the Supreme Court. In view of the above, the respondent-husband again filed O.P. No. 127 of 1984 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Pending the said O. P., the petitioner-wife filed I.A. No. 564 of 1985 in February, 1985 claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 700/-. The application was dismissed on the ground that the property was shown to be the self-acquired property of the father of the respondent-husband and that he had no property. The said order was the subject-matter of C.R.P. No, 2513 of 1989 in this Court. The said C.R.P., was allowed by an order dated 3-12-1990 wherein it was held that the property was the joint family property in which the respondent-husband was having one-fifth (l/5th) share. In view of the said finding, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fixing the quantum or maintenance. After remand, after hearing both parties and on consideration of the material placed before the court, the learned subordinate Judge fixed the interim maintenance at Rs. 150/- per month with effect from 1-12-1990 and further directed the respondent to pay Rs. 500/-

towards the litigation expenses. Questioning the said order, the present civil Revision Petition is filed by the wife.

17. Shri P. Raja Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife contended that having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner's share in the joint family property comes to Ac. 1-00 cents of wet land an Ac. 0-44 cents of dry land and taking into consideration the income thereon, the sum of Rs. 200/- per month claimed by the wife as interim alimony till the disposal of the O.P., is reasonable and that the order fixing the maintenance at a sum of Rs. 150/- per month only is not sustainable. He further contended that amount of the interim alimony should be directed to be paid with effect from February, 1985 i.e. the date of filing of I.A. No 564 of 1985.