An able-bodied person working with his father or any other relation's farm or any other kind of establishment cannot be considered as having no independent income and is liable to pay maintenance pendente lite to his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

J.V.GUPTA, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for maintenance pendent lite and expenses of the proceedings. By virtue of the impugned order, dated 20th January, 1979, the matrimonial Court has granted Rs. 100/- as litigation expenses to the wife-respondent and Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance pendent lite from the elate of her application. This revision petition has been admitted to D.B. because of the following question referred by D.S. Tewatia, J. for determination by a larger Bench.

"Whether an able-bodied person capable of working even as an ordinary labourer or one who works on his father s or any other relation s farm or any other kind of establishment can be considered as capable of maintaining his wife and thus being made to pay interim maintenance to her when she happens to be living separately from him for the reasons mentioned in a given matrimonial dispute between them."

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Gurmail Singh, petitioner, has moved a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Moga (with enhanced powers of District Judge). In that petition, Smt. Bhuchari, the respondent-wife of the petitioner, pleaded that she has no source of income and is unable to support herself and to pay the necessary expenses of the proceedings against her under Section 9 of the Act; that she has been living entirely on the mercy and charity of her parents and that the applicant Gurmail Singh is a moneyed man and his monthly income is Rs. 1000/-. Thus, she prayed that Rs. 500/- on account of expenses of the and Rupees 200/- per month as maintenance pendent lite be granted to her. The application was supported by an affidavit. To this, the husband Gurmail Singh submitted his reply that the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance pendente lite and that he does not own any property and that he has no source of income. He further pleaded that he has been working with his father. However all those averments were not supported by any affidavit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties, observed and held as under :-

"Gurmail Singh in his written reply pleaded that he has been working with his father and has got no source of income, but as stated above, his written reply has not been supported by an affidavit of the respondent. There is nothing on the file to hold that the respondent has got no independent source of income. He is an able bodied man and even if he works as a labourer, he will be able to earn at least Rs. 10/- per day He is bound to maintain his wife. Taking into consideration all the circumstances and the status of the parties; I order that Gurmail Singh respondent shall pay Rupees 100/- as litigation expenses to his wife Mst. Bhuchari and he shall also pay her maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 50/- per month from the date of this application, i.e., with effect from 28th November, 1978."

3. When the case was being heard by the learned single Judge, D.S. Tewatia, J., the counsel for the petitioner, cited a single Bench decision of this Court, reported as Smt. Lila Devi V/s. Tarlok Chand, (1978) 80 Pun LR, 744 in support of his submission that the husband in this case had no independent source of income from which interim maintenance could be ordered to be paid by the Court under Section 24 of the Act, and the husband s working with his father could not be construed as being engaged in gainful employment. The learned Judge found himself unable to agree with the view taken by S.P. Goyal J., in the aforesaid case because almost majority of the cases that come from the villages are of the nature where a husband works on the land of his father. This is how the matter is before this Bench.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any force in his contention Section 24 of the Act reads :-