The court held that a wife is entitled to expenses and maintenance pendente lite during the pendency of an appeal, if she has no other source of income and requires assistance of a good lawyer and would have to travel to Chandigarh for the appeal proceedings.

I.D.Dua, J.

1. This application has been filed on behalf of Shrimati Mohinder kaur, respondent in this Court, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for expenses of the proceedings and maintenance pendente lite. It is alleged that Dr. Tarlochan Singh filed an application for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Shri Charan Singh Tiwana, Senior subordinate Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed on 19th November 1960 against which order the present appeal has been preferred by the said Tarlochan Singh.

Shrimati Mohinder Kaur petitioning respondent has since been served with a notice of the appeal and has to make arrangements for defending her case. Her only source of income is her salary from Shazadanand Primary School, Amritsar, which amounts to Rs. 607- per month. Having no other movable or immovable property from which she can meet the expenses and live according to her status in me, she has asked for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as expenses and reasonable monthly maintenance during the pendency of these proceedings.

It has been mentioned that Dr. laricchan Singh was ordered to pay Rs. 200/- as counsels fee and Rs. 50/-as monthly maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court under Section 21 of The Act. In para 6 it is stated that Dr. Tarlochan Singh, according to his own admission in the proceedings for judicial separation, has been earning not less than Rs. 300/- per month from medical practice and also owns about tour houses in Amritsar. As the litigation is a protracted one, she has stated that she requires the assistance of a good lawyer and would also have to come to Chandigarh for the purposes of proper conduct of these proceedings which would obviously involve a certain amount of expense. Her petition is supported by her own duly sworn affidavit.

2. In opposing this petition on behalf of the husbano, it has been contended that the wife has her own resources from which she can meet the expenses of the appeal and can also maintain herself. In this connection it is note worthy that in the trial Court the learned Senior subordinate Judge ordered Dr. Tarlochan Singh on the 23rd December 1959 to pay maintenance to the wife pendent lite at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month from 28th May 1959 onwards and also to pay Rs. 200/- as expenses of me litigation. The husband came to this Court on appeal against the said order (First Appeal from Order No. 6/M of 1960, and a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the litigation expenses could not be considered to be either excessive or unreasonable; on the other hand this provision erred on the side of meagreness.

In so far as the question of maintenance was concerned, after considering the means of the husband the amount was reduced to Rs. 50/- per month. This order was passed by D. K. Mahajan J. on 2nd May 1960. It has not been shown on behalf of the husband by any cogent material that the means of the husband have undergone any change or that anything material has happened justifying reduction of the amount fixed by this Court in the previous proceedings. Mere assertion on behalf of the husband during the course of arguments by his counsel that his income has gone down, does not, in my opinion, constitute a sufficiently cogent ground for reducing the amount. It would thus appear that the rate of Rs. 50/- per month cannot be said to be, by any means, excessive.

3. Now so far as the expenses for the present appeal (First Appeal from Order No. 20 M of 1981! are concerned, alter hearing the counsel for the parties, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 200/- can reasonably be allowed to the wite for the appeal including the expenses for the present petition (Civil Miscellaneous No. 936 of 1961) for which also she had to engage a counsel and spend money in its prosecution.

4. The question with respect to maintenance arises as to from which date the sum of Rs. 50/- per month should be ordered to be paid. It is common ground