What are the case laws us 24 of Hindu Marriage Act?

Answer 1

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Case 1 1999 AIR(Raj) 304

Govind Singh

v

Smt. Vidya.

21 Apr 1999

BENCH

A. K. SINGH

THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED IN 1 CASE(S)

ACTS REFERRED

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[s. 24]

CASE NO

Civil Misc. Appeal No. 140 of 1999.

LAWYERS

B. P. Rajpurohit

.JUDGMENT TEXT

The Judgment was delivered by :

:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was

rejected.

2. The appellant was formerly earning his living by running an auto- rikshaw on hire. He has stopped that work. The respondent is said to be working as a nurse in hospital. The learned trial Court rejected

the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant was incapable of earning his living.

3. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not

mean that the husband who is otherwise capable of earning his living should stop earning the living and start depending on earning of his wife. In the instant case it appears that the appellant Govind Singh

has incapacitated himself by stopping the running the auto-rikshaw on hire. It is a well-established maxim of Anglo saxon jurisprudence that no person can be allowed to incapacitate himself. That maxim is applicable to the case of earning husband. A person who voluntarily incapacitates himself from earning is not entitled to claim maintenance from the other spouse.

4. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal. It deserves to be dismissed at the admission and is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Case 2 2000 (2) DMC 691

[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]

Kuldip Kaur @ Charanjit Kaur

v

Karam Singh

Judge - SWATANTER KUMAR

07 Oct 1999

BENCH

SWATANTER KUMAR

CASE NO

Civil Revision No. 834 of 1998

LAWYERS

Pawan Sharma, Satbir Singh, Mukesh Gandhi

.JUDGMENT TEXT

The Judgment was delivered by : SWATANTER KUMAR

1. Kuldip Kaur filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband Karam -Singh. During the pendency of this petition she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite arid litigation expenses. It was stated in the application that the husband was a teacher in a Government school and getting salary of more than Rs. 9, 000/- per month. He also owns agricultural land of 8 to 9

acres from where he has an additional income too.

2. This application was contested by the husband. The husband denied all allegations except that he was a teacher having a meagre income. It was stated that the wife had done M.A. in Economics and was working as a teacher, in a school and getting salary and earning money from tuition work to the tune of Rs. 5, 000/- per month. The minor child was stated to be with the husband, who claimed that he had to maintain his old parents, out of his salary.

3. Learned Trial Court, after discussing the merits of the case, vide its order dated 29.10.1997 granted Rs.500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 800/-as litigation expenses.

4. Aggrieved from order dated 29.10.1997, the wife has filed the present revision praying for enhancement of maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses. It is not denied by the wife even in the revision that the husband is maintaining the minor child. She has also not disputed the fact that she is M.A. in Economics. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the wife is not having any income whatsoever. Presumption of reasonable conduct and capacity to earn reasonably are equally applicable to either of the spouses to the marriage. There is an obligation on the part of the husband to maintain his wife but he certainly cannot ignore his other obligations and such

maintenance cannot be at the cost of every other moral and legal duty which the husband may owe towards his minor child and his parents.

5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that without touching upon the merits of the case and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent, the respondent-would be willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite.

6. For the reasons arore stated and in view of the voluntary statement of the Counsel appearing for the

respondent, I would accept the offer made and would permit the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife from the date of filing of this revision, i.e. 1.6.1998.This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the learned Trial Court or even pleas raised before this Court. Also see Being jobless no ground to deny maintenance to wife: Court (2008, Dec. 9). Zeenews.com, India edition http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2008-12-09/489621news.html Viny Mishra (2005, November 23). Allahabad high court orders maintenance for husband. Times of India

http://59.92.116.99/website/DOCPOST/Legal_Rights/Nov-05/PDF-Nov-05-LR/RF00%20-%20Allahabad%20high%20court%20orders.pdf

Shibu Thomas (2009, May 3). Job prospects count in alimony: Court. Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Job-prospects-count-in-alimony-Court/articleshow/4477253.cms http://delhicourts.nic.in/Apr07/Bharat%20Hedge%20Vs.%20Saroj%20Hedge.pdf