JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:---The parties married on 5-7-1981. They are having one child out of wedlock. In the year 1985 the applicant wife presented the proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The non-applicant-husband on 23-2-1989 applied under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month with expenses of the litigation. The trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and further directed to pay Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses by his order dated 6-12-1989.

2. Heard Mr. Moharil the learned Counsel for the applicant-wife. The non-applicant-husband appeared in person.

3. Taking into consideration the scheme of section 24 of the Act, either of the spouse in the proceedings on satisfying that they have no independent source of income to support them can claim maintenance pendente-lite. Husband is therefore equally entitled to claim maintenance. However, the non-applicant-husband will have to satisfy the Court either due to physical or mental disability, he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood.

4. No doubt the applicant-wife is an employee of the Collectorate earning of salary of Rs. 2,000/-. After deduction her home taking salary is Rs. 1200/-. She has also to maintain her child aged about 10 years and also to look after his education. She has satisfactorily explained the expenses to be incurred by her.

5. The non-applicant-husband was initially doing a business of book binding. According to him the bank has attached his machinery for recovery of loan. His father who is in the same business, does not render any co-operation to him.

6. The non-applicant-husband is mentally and physically well bodied person. He has a skill of a particular business. There is no handicap for him to earn bare minimum to support his livelihood. Merely because his business is closed, it cannot be held that he has no source to earn. Since the wife is in the employment, the husband cannot make himself wholly dependent on her income through a device of section 24 of the Act. In absence of any handicap or impediment to earn, to grant maintenance to such able bodied person equipped with skill would promote idleness. It is opposed to spirit of section 24 of the Act. The trial Court was wholly without justification in awarding maintenance in favour of the non-applicant-husband, impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.

Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 6-12-1989 is completely set aside. No order as to costs.

Revision Allowed.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document