IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 1269 of 2007 Karmendra Nath son of Sri Kedar Nath Sah, resident of Mohalla Gurhatta, Mojahidpur Bounsi Road, P.S. Mojahidpur, P.O. Bhagalpur City, District Bhagalpur. ...Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus Smt. Rubi Gupta wife of Sri Karmendra Nath, daughter of Sri Ganpat Sah, resident of Mohalla Bishanpur,Begusarai, Pargana Balia, P.S. Begusarai, P.O. Bishanpur, District Begusarai. …Defendant-Opposite party. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 04/ 17.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 24.05.2007 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai directed him to pay Rs.4,000.00 as consolidated cost of litigation and interim maintenance of Rs.800.00 per month jointly to his wife (defendant) and his son under the provision of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). 3. As per the claim of the petitioner he was married to the opposite party in the year 1995 whereafter on 24.03.1998 she left the petitioner to see her ailing father but did not return since then and hence he filed Matrimonial Case No.41 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights under the provision of section 9 of the Act and when the opposite party did not appear the said case was allowed ex-parte on 31.07.2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, 2 Begusarai. 4. It transpires that immediately thereafter Matrimonial Case No.94 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner for dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party under the provision of section 13 of the Act. In the said case opposite party appeared and filed an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of consolidated cost of litigation amounting to Rs.10,000.00 and interim maintenance of Rs.3,000.00 per month to her as well as her minor son. It had been stated in the said petition that she was forced to live with her parents in their house, although they were pathetically poor having a meagre source of income not even sufficient to maintain themselves and in addition to that the opposite party and her son had also become burden on them as the opposite party had got no source of income. From the impugned order it appears that it was specifically stated on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner was a man of means but he had deserted the opposite party and his son. 5. A rejoinder to the said application was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that opposite party had left her house on her own and she was working in a Nursing Home whereas the petitioner had got no source of income and he was dependent upon his father and the opposite party had also not disclosed the source of income of the petitioner, hence her petition was fit to be rejected. 6. The said application of the opposite party was allowed by the learned court bellow vide its order dated 24.05.2007 directing the petitioner to pay consolidated cost of litigation of Rs. 3 4,000.00 and interim maintenance to his wife and his son jointly at the rate of Rs.800.00 per month. The said order has been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner in the instant civil revision. On the direction of this court, notices were sent to the opposite party but even after receipt of the notice she could not appear in this case. 7. From the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order it is quite apparent that the main question is as to whether the petitioner has got source of income or the opposite party has got source of income. So far the opposite party is concerned, she has specifically stated in her application filed under section 24 of the Act that she has got no source of income but the petitioner has stated that she is working in some Nursing Home. However, the petitioner could neither produce any evidence to show that opposite party is working anywhere nor he has even given the name of the Nursing Home where according to him opposite party was working. In the said circumstances, the entire submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be absolutely untrustworthy and baseless and hence the learned court below while considering the entire matter in detail has come to the specific conclusion that the opposite party has got no source of income but in spite of that she has to maintain not only herself but also her son whose father is the petitioner admittedly. 8. Secondly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an able bodied person and is not even an old person and hence he has 4 the duty to maintain not only his wife but also his son and to help his father in his old age but the petitioner claims that he has got no source of income and is dependant on the pension received by his father. This appears to be quite strange as even a menial labourer earns his livelihood and maintains his family but the petitioner is not ready to do that according to his own case, hence it transpires that the petitioner is not only a hopeless husband but is also a hopeless father and a hopeless son and deserves no sympathy at all. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently raises a question that opposite party has refused to live with the petitioner and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. This plea is absolutely frivolous and shows the nefarious and bad intention of the petitioner, who apart from his wife, is not even ready to maintain his son. From the impugned order it is quite apparent that the opposite party has been claiming that the petitioner has deserted not only her but also their son due to which she was forced to live with her parents who are in dire financial strait. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioner that the opposite party was voluntarily not living with the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, so far the order passed in the matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights is concerned, it is an ex-parte order and seeing the pathetic condition of the opposite party it is quite apparent that either she might not have received the notice in the said case or due to her dire financial condition was not in a position to approach the court of law. In any view of the matter there is no 5 ground for the petitioner to refuse making any payment to the son who is admittedly his son. 10. On the other hand, the claim of the opposite party is that he is a man of means and has got sufficient income to maintain his wife and his son but has deserted them. In the said circumstances, the petitioner might have some grievance against his wife but he had full responsibility towards his minor son also which he has failed to discharge. Hence the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son. Furthermore the maintenance of Rs.800.00 per month jointly for two persons, namely the wife and son, is quite on the lower side and the cost of litigation of Rs.4,000.00 can also not be said to be on the higher side. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)