The wife's refusal to live with the husband is not a good cause for rejecting her application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court rejecting her application filed Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking a direction to the husband/plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards interim maintenance together with an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to meet the expenses of the proceedings liable to be incurred in the litigation, the defendant/wife has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant/wife-applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the

plaintiff/husband-respondent, and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff/husband has filed a petition on 1-7-1997, Under Section 13 of the Act, praying for a decree of divorce. Admittedly the plaintiff had been married with the defendant according to the Hindu rites nine years ago and from their wedlock, three children (two sons and one daughter) were born. The eldest son was aged about 7 years, the second was the daughter aged about 5 years; and the third one was a son aged about 2 years.

4. The divorce had been sought alleging various acts of cruelty against the wife and her desertion in regard to the discharge of the marital obligations for a period of over two-and-half years without any justifiable reason.

5. In the petition seeking divorce, the husband/plaintiff had disclosed his age to be 27 years, and occupation to be that of an agriculturist.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition of divorce, which had been registered as a suit, the defendant/wife moved an application on 22-9-1997, praying for a direction for the grant of maintenance and the expenses liable to be incurred in regard to the litigation as indicated hereinabove.

7. The defendant/wife asserted that while the eldest son was living with the husband, the daughter and the youngest son were living with her in her guardianship. It is alleged that she was being treated with cruelty by the husband and besides committing atrocities, the husband indulged in "marpeet" and also raised a demand for Rs. 20,000/- as dowry but since that demand could not be acceded to on account of the poverty of her father, the husband/plaintiff had turned her out of the matrimonial home warning her that unless she came with an amount of Rs. 20,000/- she will not be allowed to enter the house and will also be killed. The wife asserted that she was being maintained by her father some how or the other and had also to work as a labourer and had no independent source of income. She claimed that she was totally unemployed without any source of income and was facing great difficulty in making both ends to meet as her two children were also residing with her who were to be looked after.

8. The defendant/wife claimed that the total income of the husband was about Rs. 7,200/- per month. It was also claimed that the husband was residing as the member of a joint family along with his father, and the family had 10 bighas of irrigated fertile land which provided an assured source of income to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- per year. The husband was a prosperous person having a building in Jawhar Colony, Shivpuri, valued at Rs. 2.00 lacs, which building had also been providing a steady rental income of Rs. 1,000/-per month.

9. It was claimed that apart from the aforesaid source of income, the husband was also dealing in the business of sale and purchase of cereals from which he had an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was also claimed that the husband was also doing the tailoring work which provided an additional income to the tune of Rs. 1,200/- per month.

10. The aforesaid application was supported by an affidavit of the wife sworn on 22-9-1997.

11. The plaintiff/husband objected to the aforesaid application on various grounds.