Mohan Lal vs Jeeto

H.S. Bedi, J.—Vide the impugned order dated July 21, 1990, the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, allowed the application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Ad, hereinafter called the "Act" and granted a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance pendente life and litigation expenses of Rs. 800/- to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner-husband has died the present petition on the ground that the maintenance pendente lite granted was excessive and the income of the petitioner determined at Rs. 1500/- per month was without any evidence.

It has been urged by Mr. Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was, in fact, earning Rs. 1500/- per month as he was a palledar employed on seasonal basis by a Contractor working with the Food Corporation of India. He has stated that employment of the petitioner was not regular, and he did not get work every day. It is also urged that the petitioner had to look after his aged parents and, therefore, the maintenance allowed was very excessive. The learned counsel also pointed out that this Court in its order dated January 9, 1991 while admitting the present petition prima facie, found substance in his stand and had, therefore, directed that during the pendency of this petition maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month only was to be given to the respondent-wife.

In answer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satinder Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana; on the same facts and arguments.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the present petition. It is to be noted that in determining the wages in case of a person who is self employed working on contract basis, it is often difficult to determine the correct wages and emoluments and some element of guess work necessarily has to be applied. I find that any able bodied person who is willing to work is capable of earning about Rs. 1500/- per month even on daily wages. As a matter of fad, the Additional District Judge, appears to be right when he records that palledars working in the Food Corporation of India are being paid very high wages, but despite this observation, be has been extremely cautious in. determining the income at only Rs. 1500/- per month. No fault can, therefore, be found with the order of the Additional District Judge, dated July 21, 1990. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed, and a direction is issued to the petitioner to make up the arrears of Rs. 250/-per month which had been deducted under the orders of this Court at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month till the entire adjustment is made. It is, however, made clear that in case. the divorce petition which was pending before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has since been disposed off, maintenance pendente lite be paid only upto the date of the disposal of that petition.