Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Appellant's attorney also pointed out that When this appeal was pending before the Division Bench for admission, the appellant was made to pay Rs. 5,000/-to the wife as litigation expenses, but wife is also an earning hand is getting hand some salary of more than Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the Division Bench fell into an error in awarding Rs. 5,000/- to her as litigation expenses. Respondent-wife never filed an application Under Section 24 of the Act seeking such a relief. She has not proved that she does not have sufficient means to contest the case. Husband filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 729 of 1997, which was decided by the Apex Court on 27.1.1997. The Apex Court has observed that in case the High Court finds that the wife who is employed as a Head Clerk in Government of India Undertaking is not entitled to obtain maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from the appellant in view of the financial status of the parties then the High Court may pass such an order as it may think fit towards the refund of the said sum wholly or partially. Hence, he submitted that in view of this order, this amount of Rs. 5,000/- be refunded to the appellant.

13. Lastly, he pointed out that the respondent-wife never filed an application Under Section 24 of the Act claiming pendente lite maintenance or litigation expenses but the Division Bench while issuing Notice of Motion on 4.11.1996 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be sent to the wife-respondent along with summons with further direction that she is required to appear in person on the ad-journed date, i.e., 15.1.1997. No doubt, she could not appear on 17.1.1997 when the case was taken up by the Division Bench, but she appeared in person on 11.2.1997, The husband filed an application Under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code (Cri. Misc. No. 13277 C II of 1997) praying that the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- be returned to him, but this application was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 13.12.1996 holding that the husband is bound to pay litigation expenses. He also pointed out that the husband and wife both are earning but because of this appeal being filed by the husband, the respondent-wife was ordered to remain present in person by the High Court for reconciliation purposes. Under these circumstances the Division Bench in its own wisdom directed the husband to pay Rs. 5000/- to the wife as litigation expenses. Under these circumstances, the husband is not entitled to get refund of the said amount.

37. So far as the refund of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, in the lower court, both the parties filed certificate showing their pay structure. Even during arguments, both the learned attorney/counsel for the parties admitted that income of both the spouse is more than Rs. 5,000/-. When the husband filed this appeal wife was required to be summoned for reconciliation proceedings. For that purpose, the- Division Bench passed an order that the husband should pay Rs. 5,000/- to her to come to Chandigarh, but later on when he wanted to have refund of this amount, his petition was dismissed holding that he is bound to pay the litigation expenses to his wife. No doubt, in the High court wife has not filed any application Under Section 24 of the Act, but since the husband has dragged her into this litigation, it was thought proper that he should pay at least Rs. 5,000/- to the wife as litigation expenses as this was an additional burden on her income. Under these circumstances, there is no ground to order refund of the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the husband.