AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harish Tandon, J.—Pursuant to the direction, notice has been served upon Mr. Navajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party. Let the notice be kept with the record.
This revisional application is directed against order No. 10 dated 10th June 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-II, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 147 of 2008 by which an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is disposed of.
The opposite party/husband filed a suit for divorce, being MAT 147 of 2008, against the petitioner wife on various grounds enumerated u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The petitioner/wife filed an application u/s 24 of the said Act claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. It is contended by the petitioner/wife that her husband is a promoter and has an earning not less than Rs.20,000/ per month. The said application is opposed by the husband/opposite party denying to have been engaged in a business of real estate. The husband/opposite party contends that he is a daily labourer and earns Rs.100/- per day.
The trial Court disposed of the said application granting maintenance to the petitioner/wife a sum of Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.1500/- towards litigation cost. It is held by the trial Court that the wife/petitioner could not produce any scrap of paper as regards the exact income of the husband.
Income of the husband is within the special knowledge of the husband/opposite party and the onus lies upon him to prove that the income alleged by the wife is not the real income. The trial Court has wrongly shifted the onus upon the petitioner/wife.
Furthermore, the trial Court has disposed of the said application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act without affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.
Although the husband/opposite party has taken a stand that he is a daily labourer and his earning is Rs.100/-per day, no documentary evidence is produced in support of such contention. The trial Court had not considered the purport of the statement contained in the written objection in its true and proper perspective.
In such view of the matter, the order impugned in MAT 147 of 2008 is hereby set aside.
The trial Court is directed to consider the said application afresh upon giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and shall make all efforts to dispose of the said application within three months from the date of communication of this order.
The revisional application is, thus, disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.