1993 Supreme(MP) 626

R.D. Shukla, J.
Rajkumar v. Smt. Padma
C. Revn. No. 336 of 1993 (I); Decided on 9.10.1993.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 24 -- litigation expenses and maintenance amount -- award of -- maintenance amount should not be awarded from the date of application without reasons duly recorded -- income found to be Rs. 1,000/- p.m. -- Rs. 450/- is correct amount of maintenance from date of order.

        fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 24 & eqdnes dk O;; rFkk Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jde & dk vf/kfu.kZ; & lE;d~ :i ls vfHkfyf[kr dkj.kksa ds fcuk Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jde vkosnu dh rkjh[k ls vf/kfu.khZr ugha dh tkuk pkfg, & vk; :- 1]000@& izfrekl fudfkZr & vkns‘k dh rkjh[k ls :- 450@& Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, Bhd jde gSA

        The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view or the fact that the income of the petitioner-applicant has been assessed to Rs. 1,000/- per month, Rs. 700/- per month could not be granted as maintenance allowance. It ought to be 1/5th of that income. It has also been submitted that it ought not to have been awarded from the date of application. The fact of absence of independent source of income of respondent (wife) has not been challenged.

        As against this, learned counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that the petitioner is a member of the Hindu Joint Family and he must have a share in the pulse mill and the stone crusher, and therefore, the income ought to have been estimated to be more than what has been assessed by the trial Court.

        Learned counsel for the non-applicant has further tried to support the direction of payment from the date of application.

        Held : There is no cross objection to this appeal at this stage and, therefore, the assessment of learned trial Judge that the petitionerd`respondent has income of Rs. 1,000/- is to be taken as correct for the time being, of course subject to subsequent correction to that extent if evidence to that effect is adduced by the parties, before the trial Court and therefore, 70% of the amount out of the income of Rs. 1,000/- per month ought not to have been awarded as maintenance allowance. However, the petitioner is not having any other liability of maintenance. There is every chance of increase in his income. Normally major portion of the income ought to have been for the petitioner himself and therefore maintenance allowance granted deserves to be reduced.

        In view of the fact that the petitioner is having an income of Rs. 1,000/- per month with the possibility of increase, and that he is also a member of the Hindu Joint Family, owning sufficient property and therefore Rs. 450/- per month would be proper maintenance allowance which can be awarded to the respondent wife.

        Now, so far as the direction of payment from the date of application is concerned, no reason has been assigned by the trial Court as to why the same has been awarded from the date of application.

        Now, so far as expenses towards litigation is concerned, that appears to be correct at this stage.

        In view of the discussions made above. The Revision partly succeeds and the maintenance allowance awarded is modified as follows :--

        That the petitioner-husband shall pay to his wife (respondent) maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month from the date of the order of the lower Court and shall further pay Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses of litigation. Revision partly allowed.