The court's power to grant alimony pendente lite under Section 36 of the Divorce Act is discretionary and requires the court to be satisfied with the truth of the statements made in the application.

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.P No. 929 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Ettumanoor.

2. The respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He is a Dental Surgeon. The petitioner, on the other hand, is an Anesthesiologist with Post Graduate qualification and is employed at the Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital, New Delhi. Their marriage was solemnized on 04.01.2021 at the St. George Orthodox Church, Puthuppally P.O, Kottayam. The relationship between the parties became strained in the course of time, which led to the filing of the above Original Petition seeking divorce by invoking the provisions of the Divorce Act , 1869, seeking to declare their marriage null and void or in the alternative, for a decree of divorce.

3. When the case was listed for trial, an application was filed by the petitioner herein invoking Section 36 of the Divorce Act for alimony pendente lite. She contended that her parents had spent huge sums on education by availing loans and the same was being repaid by her. She contended that it was the duty of her husband to effect repayment of the loan. She asserted that though she is drawing income from her profession as a Specialist in a hospital in New Delhi, the income is insufficient to meet her expenses. She stated that to maintain the standard of living that she was used to while living with her husband, her present income is not sufficient. She also stated that inorder to pursue the litigation initiated by her husband, she is required to undertake a lot of travel from Delhi. Her prayer was to direct the respondent to bear the travel expenses for the litigation, which she calculated as Rs.1,25,000/- and also a further sum of Rs. 80,000/-, as alimony pendente lite.

4. The respondent filed an objection contending that the attempt was to delay the proceedings. According to him, he cannot be mulcted with the liability to affect loan repayments. It was pointed out that the father of the petitioner was appearing on her behalf as her Power of Attorney holder and has been conducting the case. He denied that his wife was incurring travel expenses for pursuing the litigation.

5. The Family Court evaluated the rival contentions and refused to grant the prayer. The said order is under challenge.

6. We have heard Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Section 36 of the Divorce Act , 1869 deals with Alimony pendente lite. The said provision reads thus:

“ S. 36 -Alimony pendente lite: In any suit under this Act, whether it be instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an order of protection the wife may present a petition for expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit.

Such petition shall be served on the husband; and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements therein contained, may make such order on the husband for payment to the wife of the expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit alimony pending the suit as it may deem just:

Provided further that the petition for the expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days of service of such petition on the husband.”

8. Section 36 provides for the wife to request financial support and legal expenses while a suit is pending, whether it be instituted by the wife or the husband. If the court is satisfied with the truth of the statements contained therein, it can order the husband to pay for the wife's legal expenses and alimony during the suit. This provision ensures that the wife is not financially disadvantaged during the legal process.

9. In the present case, the Court deduced from the affidavit submitted by the wife that her monthly income was Rs. 1,00,000/-. Although she requested that her husband be directed to repay the loan amount, she failed to