ORDER :- Revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent. They are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). They were married on 24-8-1975 and lived together till December, 1979. Thereafter, they have been living apart. Each has his/her own explanation for the present state of affairs.

2. Husband filed H.M.O.P.4/1983 seeking divorce under S.13 of the Act and the wife filed written statement resisting the petition. On 5-7-1983 she filed I.A.957/1983 claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and also Rs.2,000/- as expenses for conducting the case from the husband. Husband resisted the application and the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the application directing the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from 5-7-1983 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as expenses of the proceedings. The wife, being dissatisfied with the quantum awarded, has filed this revision.

3. Husband is a well placed businessman in Mattancherry. He as well as his wife have affluent background and belong to trading families. Evidently, the wife has lost her father. She is at present living with her relations namely mother, uncle and brother and is dependent wholly on her uncle and brother for eking out her livelihood. According to her, she has no income at all. The husband alleged, and this allegation has been accepted by the court below, that a sum of Rs.22,000/- is lying in fixed deposit in the wife's name in a bank and that a piece of land has been purchased in her name. The wife alleged that the records relating to fixed deposit are with the husband and therefore she has no control over it. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the records have been submitted before court. The fact remains that the fixed deposit has matured and interest has ceased to run. This cannot be a source of income at present. There is no case that the piece of land standing in her name fetches any income. Thus, the court below proceeded on the basis that the wife has no income of her own.

4. The husband is a businessman in Mattancherry, being a partner in family business. The wife alleged that his monthly income exceeds Rs.10,000/-, an allegation denied by him. However, in his counter statement, he did not disclose his income. Nor did he produce any documents before the court below to show his income. In these circumstances, the court below came to the conclusion that he must have monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. It was on that basis that maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs.800/-per month. According to the wife, maintenance fixed is too low. Respondent seeks to justify the quantum of maintenance fixed by challenging the finding of the court below that the husband's income is Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. In the court below the wife filed an application calling upon the husband to produce assessment orders relating to income-tax and wealth tax. Husband did not produce the documents before the court pleading that they are privileged documents. Learned counsel for the respondent has now produced two assessment orders relating to income-tax. First order dt, 13-3-1984 relates to the assessment year 1981-82. His income is fixed at Rs.59,269/-. Tax and surcharge levied is Rs.13,908. Net income for that year is Rs.45,361. The second order dt. 29-12-1984 relating to the assessment year 1982-83 shows his income as Rs.47,836/-. Tax assessed is Rs.8,760/-. Thus, his net income for that year is Rs.39,076/-. Taking these two assessment orders, his average net income for the two years is Rs.42,218.50. He has not produced assessment orders relating to the later assessment years. Nor has he produced his accounts or other records to show his income for the year 1983-84 or 1984-85. However, his income could not be Rs.10,000/- per month. His annual income could be estimated at Rs.48,000/-. This would be Rs.4,000/- per month.

6. The court below has not given any reason for fixing Rs.800/- per mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document