Point of Law: Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act provides for grant of maintenance pendente lite in case either wife or husband, as case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

1. Petitioner has taken exception to order dated 23.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge(1), Family Court, Una, H.P., in H.M.A. No. 306 of 2021 in H.M.A. Petition No. 30/2021, whereby petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance pendente lite to the respondent @ Rs. 5,000/-per month besides payment of litigation expenses @ Rs. 12,000/-

2. Respondent has filed a petition against petitioner for a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty, which is pending adjudication before learned Additional Principal Judge (1), Family Court, Una, H.P. as H.M.A. Petition No. 30/2021.

3. Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the aforesaid proceedings for grant of maintenance pendente lite. She averred that the petitioner was owner of a Dhaba and was earning more than Rs. 80,000/- per month, but had not been providing any maintenance to respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent was unable to maintain herself as well as her children. She had to depend upon her poor parents for survival. Respondent had no independent source of income. Accordingly, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 20,000 was claimed.

4. In response, petitioner submitted that he was earning only Rs.8,000/-per month. As per petitioner, respondent had landed property in her name and was also working as partner having 50% share in project under the name and style of M/s Standard Agro Project. It was alleged that respondent was earning more than Rs.80,000/-per month. Petitioner also submitted that respondent was being maintained by him and she was being provided with all necessities of life.

5. Learned Trial Court allowed the application of respondent for grant of maintenance pendente lite in terms as noticed above and hence this petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned Trial Court has considered the relevant material placed before it. Learned Trial Court relied upon the affidavit placed by the respondent on record in support of her averments. It has also been noticed that petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show that respondent was having independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her children. The findings returned by learned Trial Court cannot be faulted as are found to be borne from the material on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the fact of respondent having independent source of income is borne from the documents placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. The arguments so advanced deserved to be rejected for the reason that from perusal of these documents it cannot be inferred that respondent has any earning of her own. Annexure P-6 is jamabandi, whereby ownership of respondent over a piece of barren land measuring 120 sq. mtrs.is recorded. It is not explained that how and in what manner respondent is generating income from such a small piece of land. Similarly, Annexure P-7 is a copy of an agreement executed by respondent on 05.12.2018. This document also does not justify the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing in agreement dated 05.12.2018, which can suggest that respondent was having any earning from the partnership business mentioned therein.

9. Once it is prima-facie shown that the respondent had no independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and her children, the liability of the petitioner to maintain her by payment of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act arises. Admittedly, petitioner is owner of a Dhaba. In order to prima-facie convince the Court about his income, petitioner could have placed some tangible material on record, in absence of which, it can be inferred that the monthly income disclosed by the petitioner from his Dhaba is not genuinely correct.

10. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for gr