An able-bodied husband is obligated to maintain his wife and cannot deny maintenance based on financial constraints.

ORDER

VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral). -

CM-5207-CII-2021

1. This is an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. for exemption of certified/true typed copy of the judgment dated 19.02.2021.

2. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from annexing certified/typed copy of judgment dated 19.02.2021.

CR-1246-2021 (O&M)

3. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 19.02.2021 vide which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife with the direction to the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent i.e., Rs. 3,000/- per month for respondent and Rs. 2,000/- for son Rakshit from the date of filing the application i.e., 24.04.2019. The petitioner has also been directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,500/- to the respondent as litigation expenses.

4. An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent-wife seeking maintenance pendente lite worth Rs. 30,000/- per month and lump sum amount of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses from the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and it is during the pendency of the said proceedings that the said application under Section 24 was filed by the respondent-wife. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the marriage was solemnized on 06.03.2011 and from the wedlock, Rakshit was born in February, 2017, who is residing with the respondent-wife and that the parties had been residing separately since February, 2017.

5. In the application under Section 24, the respondent-wife submitted that she had no source of income. It has further been stated that the petitioner-husband is young and able bodied person and the petitioner and his family is having 25 bighas of land in Rajasthan and they are earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum from the above-said land. In the reply filed to the same, the petitioner-husband has denied having any source of income. However, the fact that the respondent-wife has no source of income has not been disputed by the petitioner-husband, either before the learned trial Court or even before this Court. The petitioner-husband has admitted in his affidavit submitted before the learned trial Court that his father was having 28 kanals of land. The learned trial Court/Family Court after considering all the above said aspects, had partly allowed the application in the terms as stated herein-above.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has raised two submissions. The first submission raised by the learned counsel is that he has no source of income. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 and even thereafter, the respondent-wife did not join the petitioner-husband in the matrimonial home. It is, thus, submitted that it is the respondent who is not willing to come back to the petitioner It is the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the above two arguments, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

7. This Court has considered both the above-said arguments but has found the same to be merit less. It has not been disputed either before the learned Family Court or before this Court that the respondent-wife has no source of income. The factum of the petitioner-husband being able-bodied is also not denied. It has been admitted in the affidavit that the father of the petitioner is having 28 kanals of land.

8. This Court in the case titled as "Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi" reported as 2017 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 875, has categorically held that where the husband is able bodied, then his me