A court must record evidence of both parties' income before ordering interim maintenance, ensuring fair proceedings in family law cases.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent in-person.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 10 of 2013 whereby and whereunder interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/-per month and Rs.1500/- as litigation cost on each date in the case have been allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court to the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any justification.There has been no document on record showing income of the petitioner, who was not heard and the order has been passed in his absence. The learned counsel further submits that Matrimonial Case No. 10 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent. Despite service of notice, respondent did not appear and matter proceeded ex-parte and thereafter, an ex-parte order has been passed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. After expiry of the statutory period for appeal, the petitioner solemnized another marriage on 18.12.2015. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 06 of 2016 has been filed in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara on 25.02.2016 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 26.04.2014 passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 10 of 2013. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara vide order dated 14.05.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 06 of 2016 recalled the ex-parte judgment dated 26.04.2014 and decree dated 01.05.2014 passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 10 of 2013 and restored the said case to its original file. The petitioner has challenged the order for restoration passed in Misc. Case No. 06 of 2016 by filing Misc.Appeal No. 620 of 2018 before this Court. The respondent filed a petition on 05.06.2018 under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT seeking interim maintenance, which was allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide order dated29.06.2018 and the same is under challenge before this Court.

4. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in a hasty manner without waiting for the appearance of the petitioner. No inquiry has been made regarding the income of the petitioner and without any proper inquiry the impugned order has been passed. While passing the order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not recorded any finding about the income of the petitioner and without any material regarding income of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which prima facie appears to be perverse. The learned counsel refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Vikash Kumar Dubey vs. Savita Devi reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 652 on the point that the Family Court is required to record its finding about the income of the petitioner while allowing ad interim maintenance. The learned counsel further refers to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Jha vs. Premsheela Devi reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 125 on the point that litigation cost should not be made payable every month but should be awarded lump sum. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge in both the cases held that the court should prima facie determine the income of the husband and the wife in order to grant maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse. The learned Single Judge further held that before ordering for ad interim maintenance under the provision, the court is required to carefully examine the matter regarding income of both the parties. The learned counsel further