Full Judgment
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
(1) Civil Revision No. 789/95 has been filed by the husband, petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 21.7.1995 of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. No. 429/94 fixing interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) at Rs. 5,000.00 per month for his wife, respondent herein, as well as his one son and a daughter and directing payment of a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 towards the litigation expenses and reimbursement of medical expenses of his mentally retarded daughter. Civil Revision No. 916/95 has been filed by the wife questioning the impugned order dated 21.7.1995. This order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions.
(2) Brief facts leading to filing of these revision petitions are that the husband (petitioner) brought an application under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Act against his wife (respondent) in the Court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi. The respondent made an application u/Section 24 of the Act that she having no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of litigation, the petitioner may be ordered to pay her a sum of Rs. 15,000 / - per mensem as interim maintenance for herself as well as for her two children, one of whom is a mentally retarded daughter, and a further sum of Rs. 15,000.00 by way of litigation expenses. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that he had no source of income and the respondent had been earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month and also maintaining a car besides FDRs of Rs. 30,000/ - in a bank. On a consideration of the material available on the record, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge came to the conclusion that neither the husband nor the wife has any current income but the husband is a member of an affluent joint-Hindu Family and the said family had entered into an agreement of sale of one of its property for a consideration of more than Rs. one crore. He accordingly passed the impugned order.
(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no source of income and the respondent has been earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month from her business and also maintaining a car besides fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000.00 in a bank, the impugned order fixing the interim alimony at Rs. 5,000.00 per mensem is not sustainable. Learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously contested the above contentions and submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner's monthly income is more than Rs. 25,000.00 per month, and the respondent has to maintain one son (aged 19 years) and a mentally retarded daughter (aged about 16 years), the interim alimony ought to have been fixed at Rs. 15,000.00 per month.
(4) It has to be borne in mind that the Act has not set any limit to the interim alimony awardable under Section 24. Section 24 speaks of fixing a reasonable amount. While determining the quantum of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act the Court has not only to take into consideration of the income of the petitioner and the respondent provided in the Section but also relevant facts and circumstances in the case including the conduct of the parties. In Neelam Malhotra v. Rajendera Malhotra, : AIR1994 Delhi234 , it has been held that there can be no precise or settled formulae to assess the quantum of interim alimony and each case depends upon its own facts. What is reasonable amount must differ from case to case. However the amount awardable under Section 24 of the Act should normally be restricted to the actual needs of the petitioner and it should not be on a very parsimonious or misery scale.
(5) It is pertinent to note here that on 25.9.1995, the petitioner was directed by this Court to pay Rs. 30,000.00 , out of the arrears of maintenance, to the respondent before 27.9.1995 and the balance amount of arrears within three months from the date of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid only Rs. 10,000.00 . Consequently on 10.11.1995, the petitioner was again directed to comply with the Court's order on or before 5.1.1996 and it was also made clear that failure to comply with the said order will entail dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition. Again, the petitioner did not comply with the Court's orders and on 25.3.1996, the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the maintenance to the respondent. Thus the petitioner has forfeited the exercise of discretion in his favor and his revision petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the Court's order dated 10.11.1995.
(6) In the instant case, the learned Trial Court, in its discretion has fixed interim alimony under Section 24 of the Act at Rs. 5,000.00 per month and also awarded Rs. 5,500.00 towards the litigation expenses. The learned Trial Court has also directed the petitioner to reimburse the medical expenses of his mentally retarded daughter. There is nothing on the record to show that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in a capricious or arbitrary. It is well settled that Section 115, Cpc applies to matter of jurisdiction alone, the irregular exercise or non-exercise of it or the illegal assumption of it. (Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, : AIR 1959 SC492 ). The learned Trial Court has jurisdiction to make the impugned order and it has not acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error or procedure which is material and may have affected the ultimate decision in fixing the interim alimony u/Section 24 of the Act. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error of legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 115, CPC. For the foregoing reasons, both the revision petitions must fail and are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.5.1996.