Atul Kumar Vs. Bindu Kumar - Court Judgment |
| Family |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Sep-01-1992 |
| Civil Revision No. 1244 of 1992 |
| N.K. Kapoor, J. |
| II(1992)DMC553 |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24 |
| Atul Kumar |
| Bindu Kumar |
| Jiwan Lata, Adv. |
| V.B. Aggarwal, Adv. |
| Petition dismissed |
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party..........of the addl: district judge, ambala, dated 30th of july, 1991, whereby maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses have been awarded under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, to the respondent e.g. litigation expenses of rs. 1,000/- and an equal sum as maintenance pendente lite, per month.2. reconciliation between the parties was attempted but it did not yield any result.3. the parties have been heard on the merits of this petition. the sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the addl: district judge, ambala, has erred in law in awarding the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of rs. 1,000/- per month, as there is no evidence on the record by which it can be inferred that the petitioner is having sufficient income. counsel further submitted that the alleged family business under the name and style of m/s. parkash engineering works, is owned by his father and uncle and this way the assertion of the respondent that the income of the petitioner, as partner of the above firm, is about rs. 8000/- per month, is merely conjectural. there is no evidence on record by which it could be easily deduced that petitioner has income of rs. 8000/- per.....
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is husband petition, challenging the order of the Addl: District Judge, Ambala, dated 30th of July, 1991, whereby maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses have been awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the respondent e.g. litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- and an equal sum as maintenance pendente lite, per month.
2. Reconciliation between the parties was attempted but it did not yield any result.
3. The parties have been heard on the merits of this petition. The sole submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Addl: District Judge, Ambala, has erred in law in awarding the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, as there is no evidence on the record by which it can be inferred that the petitioner is having sufficient income. Counsel further submitted that the alleged family business under the name and style of M/s. Parkash Engineering Works, is owned by his father and uncle and this way the assertion of the respondent that the income of the petitioner, as partner of the above firm, is about Rs. 8000/- per month, is merely conjectural. There is no evidence on record by which it could be easily deduced that petitioner has income of Rs. 8000/- per month.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I feel there is no merit in the present petition. It is worth noticing that the petitioner did not chose to support his averment by filing an affidavit before the Court of Addl: District Judge. Admittedly, petitioner is one of the members of the Joint Hindu Family firm--M/s. Parkash Engineering Works, which according to the respondent is making huge profit. The petitioner intentionally has not placed on record the balance sheet of the firm, which would have given the extent of the profits of the firm and the share of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly dismissed the revision petition, being without any merit.
5. Respondent has filed an application for grant of litigation expenses and has claimed a sum of Rs. 2000/-. I feel that this claim of the respondent is on the higher side. Accordingly, I allow a sum of Rs. 750/- as litigation expenses to the respondent in this revision petition. This amount is in addition to the amount already awarded by the Addl : District Judge. No order as to costs.