Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) -THIS Civil Revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and order dated 15th May, 1982 of the Additional District Judge Delhi directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 700.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 400.00 per month as pendentelite maintenance with effect from 16th March, 1982 to the respondent.

(2) SMT.SUNITA Jagmohan Verma, the respondent on 20th February, 1982 filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the petitioner. She alleges that a marriage was solemnised between the parties on 19th March, 1978 at Pune. She filed her affidavit dated 20th February, 1982 in support of the said marriage. She further pleads that both the parties on 22nd March, 1978 left for Kashmir for haney-moon, cohabited and consummated the marriage, that after return they lived together and cohabited at Bombay for some time and after exhausting his leave the petitioner returned to Cochin where he was posted, that she used to visit her husband off and on in Cochin, where they cohabited and lived together, that the petitioner was transferred to Bombay in May 1979 where they lived up to the end of July 1981, that during this period up to the end of July 1981, that during this period she conceived twice from him in December 1978 and June 1980 and both these pregnancies wkere terminated as desired by the petitioner, that he was transferred to Delhi in August 1981 in Naval Headquarters, New Delhi and started living with his father at 221, Laxmi Bai Nager, New Delhi, that he had been telling her that they would take another house on rent and then both would live together, that the petitioner neither rented any house nor took her to his father's house because he had not disclosed the marriage to his father, that he withdrew from her society without any reasonable cause. The respondent on 16th March, 1982 filed an application under section 24 the Act claiming maintenance at Rs. 800.00 per month and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 3000.00 alleging that she was not possessed of any moveable or immoveable property and that she had no source of income sufficient for her support and expenses for legal proceedings, that the petitioner was a high ranking officer in the Indian Navy getting salary of Rs. 2600.00 per month.

(5) Under this section if the husband or the wife has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and expenses for the proceedings, power is conferred upon the Court to fix the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses considering the income of the applicant and the nonapplicant. The condition,for passing such an order under section 24 of the Act is that the applicant has no independent source of income sufficient for support and expenses. An application under this section may be made in any proceedings under the Act. In the instant case the main proceeding, is under section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights by the wife The object of this section is that neither party may suffer by her or his inability to conduct the proceedings for want of money for expenses. The real object of the maintenance is to support the party without means during pendency of proceedings. Exercise of power under this section does not appear to be dependent on the defense raised by the opposite party. Even in cases where the factum of marriage is denied by the opposite parly the Court has jurisdiction to determine prima facie the factum of marriage on the basis of documents and affidavits that may be placed before the Court. The passing of an order under this section further cannot be postponed till the final determination of the relationship of husband and wife. If it be so the purpose of this section Would be frustrated. In a petition for restitution of conjugal rights if the defense taken is that there was no marriage between the parties, and the petitioner-wife had no means to support her or to conduct the legal proceedings she would be without any remedy. In proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights the factum and validity of marriage is generally denied so that the party approaching the Court for relief may be harassed and on account of harassment, such party may not pursue the remedy. I am therefore, of the opinion that even if the factum or validity of the marriage is denied, the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Act has power to award maintenance and litigation expenses to the applicant i.e. the wife or the husband after prima fade determining whether there was marriage or not. The Court however has to be very careful and cautious in considering the affidavits, the documents and other material brought to its notice while determining the factum of marriage even prima facie, otherwise the provision is liable to be misused.

(10) The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that even if on a prima facie view of the matter maintenance is granted to the respondent, she should be directed to give security for restitution in case the fails to prove the factum of marriage. There is nothing on the record to hold that the respondent hag any independent source of income or is possessed of any moveable or immoveable property. The learned counsel for the respondent lubmits that she is not in a position to furnish any security for restitution of the amount of maintenance or litigation expenses.An order under section 24 of the Act is passed with a view to provide support to the weaker spouse to enable her to maintain and conduct the legal proceedings If she is not in a position even to furnish security, then it would mean that even if an order for payment is made she would not get the maintenance or the litigation expenses and the result would be that she would be deprived of conducting the proceedings under the Act and she would further be deprived of the amount required for her support. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there is no provision for furnishing security for restitution of the amount of maintenance or litigation expenses paid in pursuance of an order under section 24 of the Act. The learned counsel fur the petitioner however, submits that this Court in the exercise of inherent power can direct the respondent to furnish security. There is no doubt that this Court has inherent power to pass such orders as may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, I find that there is no justification under the facts of the present case to direct the respondent to furnish any security.

(11) No dispute has been raised about the quantum of monthly maintenance and the litigation expenses. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the trial Court. The revision petition is there fore, dismissed wilh no order as to costs.

(12) The petitioner-husband is directed to pay the litigation expenses and the maintenance within one month from today to the respondent. If any amount has been deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court, the same may be paid to her to enable her to conduct the proceedings and maintain herself. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 13th December, 1982.